Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will take steps to reduce the television licence fee for the old and for the housebound.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will introduce legislation to allow all retirement pensioners free television licences.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether, in view of dissatisfaction felt by retirement pensioners with the present regulations governing concessions to such pensioners in respect of broadcast receiving licences, he will seek to extend the concessions.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher, Chataway): No, Sir. However, I under-

stand that local authorities have power to assist elderly and handicapped people with their television licences. It is, of course for the local authority concerned to use its judgment in providing this service.

Mr. Golding: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Post Office ever intends to publish, and whether he has seen, the study undertaken by the University of Essex into the problem of isolation amongst the disabled and elderly housebound? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Wales the Post Office and the union jointly are experimenting with the provision of licences for the elderly housebound on a non-economic basis?

Mr. Chataway: As far as I know there are no plans by my Department or by the Post Office to publish the study to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I accept that television is extremely valuable to many elderly and sick people, but I do not believe that a concession of this kind would be the best way of meeting the need.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that old-age pensioners seem to get from his Government is compassion by the bucketful and great tidal waves of crocodile tears? All that is needed to provide this concession is about £35 million, which is substantially less than surtax payers will receive during the present financial year.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has his own manner of putting supplementary questions, but the fact remains that it has been the policy of successive Governments that concessions on the licence fee are not the best way of meeting this problem.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As my right hon. Friend knows, we have been in correspondence on this matter on more than one occasion. Would he at least recognise that an increasing resentment is building up at the discrimination between those who live on an estate where there is a warden and those who do not? I know that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for having introduced the present measures, but this is becoming increasingly unfair and the problem must be resolved very soon.

Mr. Chataway: As I have said to my hon. Friend, I recognise that wherever one draws the line there are bound to be difficulties. The difficulty stems from the fact that we license homes rather than sets and, therefore, a judgment has to be made as to what is a domestic household. Although the line where it is drawn now gives rise to difficulties, I believe that there is no satisfactory alternative.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that both sides of the House have from time to time shown that they would be prepared to make a concession, right across the board, to old people who live alone? The principle behind the Question is how we are to fight loneliness and give old people some companionship in their old age. Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this to see what can be done to provide free licences, right across the board, for all old people who live alone?

Mr. Chataway: I shall continue to consider these matters and any suggestions that are put forward, but if we were to issue a free licence to all elderly people the cost would be about £27 million. If that sum were financed out of licence fees, it would mean that another £2 on the licence fee would be payable by the rest of the community and that many who were less well off would be subsidisine those who were better off.

Commercial Radio (Scotland)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on his proposals for commercial radio in Scotland.

Mr. Chataway: In last Thursday's debate on the Sound Broadcasting Bill I said that it was the Authority's tentative view that Glasgow should be among the first stations. I cannot go beyond that at present.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that the proposals for commercial radio in Scotland are not being received with a great deal of enthusiasm? Will not the fact that we are likely to have commercial radio in Scotland and that there is at present a substantial downturn in advertising place local newspapers in a serious position? Some local newspapers are part of community life in Scotland and

they depend upon advertising for their existence.

Mr. Chataway: The proposals in the Bill take particular account of the position of newspapers. If the citizens of Glasgow, like the hon. Gentleman, do not wish to listen to commercial radio, it will not last very long. However, if they do, no doubt they will take into account his opposition.

Broadcasting Reception (Cornwall)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what steps he proposes to take to improve television and radio reception in Cornwall.

Mr. Chataway: The B.B.C. and I.T.A., which are primarily responsible for the range and quality of the transmissions of their services, tell me that with the exception of small pockets of difficult reception they are receivable throughout Cornwall, provided efficient receivers and aerials are used.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that those pockets are rather larger than he has been given to understand and that this has been a recurring question for 20 years or more? During that time absolutely Sweet Fanny Adams has been done about it. Is it not fraudulent that hundreds of Cornish television viewers should have to pay a full licence fee for the privilege of watching a perpetual snowstorm four seasons if the year? If the right hon. Gentleman drives a car across my constituency he will find that the radio comes and goes in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to tell Bach from Bartok.

Mr. Chataway: I am advised that the county is generally well served. Two out of the first 19 transmitting stations to transmit the new colour service were built in Cornwall. Nearly 60 will be required to provide for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Telephones (Equipment)

Mr. Roderick: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the latest supply position in regard to equipment for the installation of telephones.

Mr. Chataway: This is a management matter for the Post Office. I would refer


the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on 28th October.—[Vol. 823, c. 479.]

Mr. Roderick: Does the Minister recognise that there are serious delays in getting telephones installed in many parts of Wales? The answer that I am given on each occasion by telephone managers is shortage of equipment. Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Post Office Corporation to start manufacturing equipment for itself, thereby also helping to solve the unemployment problem?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office is moving as fast as it can to meet increasing demand. To a large extent the capacity of the telephone service is determined by investment five years previously. Investment is now running at more than 50 per cent. higher than it was five years ago.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the Minister answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) about manufacturing by the Post Office itself? The Minister seems continually to refer us to the Post Office Corporation. If the Corporation is to be a commercial organisation, should it not be allowed to make commercial judgments and operate in that way?

Mr. Chataway: As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, I have received no application from the Post Office for permission to manufacture; nor do I believe that that will be any answer to the problems.

Postal Charges and Services

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement on his proposals for increasing postal charges and economies in the postal services.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement about his proposals for increasing postal charges and economies in the postal services.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on proposed increases in postal charges.

Mr. Chataway: I have made no proposals but the Post Office has now put its proposals, to which I referred in my answer of 3rd November to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) to the Post Office Users National Council for study. Neither the Govenment nor the Post Office is committed to them until the Council's comments are received.—[Vol. 825, c. 2.]

Mr. Morris: If the Post Office accepts all the proposals for restructuring the postal services, including the proposal for 25,000 redundancies, will not there still be a shortfall of £130 million on the statutory five-year financial target of the Post Office? Why do not the Post Office and the Minister take the nation into their confidence and tell it that there is to be another increase in postal charges in August of next year?

Mr. Chataway: There are no proposals for a postal increase at any definite date ahead, though clearly the Post Office is not insulated from rising costs and nobody would pretend that it is. There are no proposals for 25,000 redundancies. The proposals that the Post Office has made would mean over the rest of the decade a reduced number of jobs, but these would be dealt with almost entirely by natural wastage.

Mr. Goodhart: I appreciate that the Post Office cannot be insulated from inflationary pressures, but will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that any increase in charges is matched by the removal of bureaucratic restrictions which irritate customers? My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am referring to the absurd rule that no more than five words of conventional greeting can be written on an unsealed Christmas card going overseas.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of my hon. Friend's general point. As to the specific matter about which he is concerned, I understand that this is an international regulation governing the international printed paper rate. I am sure that the next time these matters come up for discussion at the Universal Postal Union, the Post Office will take account of my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be


no increase in postal charges within the next 12 months? Will he further state that if what we read in the Press is true, the quality of the services that he and the Post Office intend to provide in future will be worse than those provided in the days of Rowland Hill?

Mr. Chataway: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I can tell him that if the 19 per cent. pay claim had been conceded, allied to a refusal to discuss further productivity measures, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were supporting only a few months ago, the tariff increases and the reduction in services would have had to be very substantial indeed.

Mr. Richard: The Minister cannot evade his responsibilities by first trying to abuse the Opposition and, second, by saying that they are not his proposals. We all know that technically they are not his proposals. What is his attitude to the proposals? Is he in favour of them or against them?

Mr. Chataway: It is a pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not read my earlier statement which said that the Government had been consulted and agreed that the Post Office should put forward these proposals for consideration by the users council. When we have the opinions of the users council on the number of different alternatives which have been put forward by the Post Office, a decision will be reached.

Mr. Richard: Again the Minister has not answered the question. Does he think that the proposals for tariff increases and reductions in services are justified? It is a simple question.

Mr. Chataway: I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman that from a number of alternatives which have been put to the users council we shall decide subsequently in the light of the users council's views. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot object to the Government adopting a procedure whereby they try to discover what users want before reaching a decision.

Mail (Delivery)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to investi-

gate the delay in delivery of Her Majesty's mails.

Mr. David Clark: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is satisfied with the delivery of first-class mail; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: I have no reason to believe that the Post Office is failing in the duties laid upon it in Section 9 of the Post Office Act, 1969, and I do not think a general direction is called for.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Although we are becoming inured to slower posts, is not the capriciousness of deliveries becoming quite terrifying and destroying confidence in the Post Office? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I received in London by the same post three first-class letters postmarked on three successive days in Surrey? I have the covers to show him it he wants to see them.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office is certainly not complacent about present performance. My hon. Friend will have seen that the users council, in a move which I greatly welcome, has started to conduct surveys into the Post Office's performance. These will be a very valuable addition to the means of measuring this. What is clear from that study and from the Post Office's own study is that the vast majority of first-class letters are delivered on the next working day.

Mr. Clark: The Post Office may not be complacent, but I believe that the Minister is. He says that there is a very high next-day delivery record for first-class mail. In different parts of the country there is a great shortfall. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in parts of West Yorkshire the mail train from London is regularly over an hour late and the mail is usually two days late?

Mr. Chataway: Obviously the Post Office will consider any difficulties that the hon. Gentleman cares to raise with it. On the longer train hauls there is bound to be a less satisfactory performance than on the shorter ones.

Television Licence Evasion

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement


on the progress of his campaign to reduce the numbers of television licence evaders.

Mr. Chataway: This year's campaign will last until the spring of 1972, and a final assessment cannot be made until then. However, in the first towns visited, the number of new licences taken out is reported to have been, on average, more than three times higher than it normally is.

Mr. Hamilton: I am obliged for that answer, but will the right hon. Gentleman give his latest estimate of the revenue currently being lost through evasion? Would it not be much better if he decided to spend an extra £2 million on this purpose rather than the £2 million he proposes to spend on the introduction of commercial radio, which very few people seem to want?

Mr. Chataway: There is no comparison between those expenditures, since one is a loan and the other is an expenditure. I shall, if I may, send to the hon. Gentleman the up-to-date figure of sums lost to the B.B.C. through licence evasion. It is still the case that money spent on anti-evasion is yielding a return at least seven times greater than the expenditure.

Telephones (Charges)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to the effect that increases in telephone charges of a kind intended to restrict demand for telephones shall not be applied in the case of old and disabled people.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. I do not think that this would be the best means of helping those in need.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Post Office has in mind increases in telephone charges over and above what is required as a result of higher wages in order to restrict demand? Would it not be quite wrong to restrict the demand of persons such as the old and the disabled, who really need a telephone?

Mr. Chataway: I shall bear my right hon. Friend's views in mind. There are no proposals for overall tariff increases of the scale which he suggests.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) has raised an important issue. Does the Minister realise that far from having to pay the same as ordinary persons, these people, the aged and the disabled, frequently have to pay more because they require special apparatus? Will he, please, reconsider his charges for items such as L.S.T. apparatus for the old and the disabled?

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities and the Supplementary Benefits Commission have power to help in this respect. I do not consider that it would be appropriate for the Post Office to attempt to discriminate between the needs of different users.

Broadcasts (Censorship)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to censoring of broadcasts.

Mr. Chataway: The policy of this Government as it has been of previous Governments is that each of the two broadcasting authorities is, as a trustee for the public interest in broadcasting, wholly and solely responsible for the programme content of its services.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: While fully—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman rises for a supplementary question if not for the Question itself.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to you Mr. Speaker for your help. I fully support my right hon. Friend in setting his face against a system of censorship, which would be entirely contrary to this country's traditions, but will he use his influence which, even though he be only a corporation sole, is considerable, to ensure that television and wireless coverage of events in Northern Ireland are objective and, if there is any doubt, to ensure that the benefit of it is given to the forces of the Crown, not to Her Majesty's enemies?

Mr. Chataway: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has undertaken to bring to the notice of the chairmen of the two broadcasting authorities the extent of parliamentary concern about reporting in


Ulster. There should be no doubt, however, that the broadcasting organisations have an extremely difficult task in this respect. They have, on the one hand, to recognise that the presence of cameras may sometimes influence events and that they are, therefore, in a sense, participants as well as reporters, while, on the other hand, they have to try to give fair coverage.

Mr. Whitehead: I welcome the important statements on this matter which the Minister has just made, but will he ask the Independent Television Authority to inquire into the circumstances in which a "World in Action" programme on events in the Republic of Ireland was banned without being seen by the Authority, against, as I understand it, the views of the I.T.A. officials who saw the programme in its early stages in Manchester?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir, I will not. The I.T.A. has the responsibility. It is the trustee for the public. It is for the Authority to make judgments. I do not believe that broadcasters serve even their own best interests if they seem to challenge the Authority's exercise of that power and its right to exercise it.

Television Programmes (Coding)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will discuss with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority a scheme for displaying in the corner of the television screen a series of small easily recognisable symbols, common to all television services, throughout the broadcast of any programme which might be considered undesirable for particular categories of viewers.

Mr. Chataway: This must be a matter for the judgment of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., which, I am sure, will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mrs. Oppenheim: My right hon. Friend's answer is rather disappointing. Is he aware that this system is inexpensive, effective and administratively simple, and it has been operated by French television for a number of years? Does he realise that it would be greatly appreciated by viewers in this country, who may turn on in the middle of a programme but who might not wish to watch a pro-

gramme which contained subject matter repugnant to them or frightening? [HON. MEMBERS: "Switch off."] They do not necessarily know in the middle of a programme that it contains such material. Will my right hon. Friend accept that such a system would be greatly welcomed by parents, as they would immediately be able to assess the suitability of a programme for family viewing?

Mr. Chataway: There seems to be an obvious case for a system such as that suggested by my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the B.B.C. will consider it. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Corporation has in the past concluded that a coding system of this type would, in fact, attract children to programmes which are not suitable.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman make categorically clear that he will back the B.B.C. against any and every attempt to force censorship upon it, from whatever source the attempt might come?

Mr. Chataway: There is no question of censorship, but there are here difficult considerations for society and for the broadcasting organisations. I believe that it is to everyone's advantage that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have the discussions to which I have referred.

Television Booster Stations

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will allocate to the Post Office additional public funds to enable the acceleration of the building programme of booster television relay 625-line stations.

Mr. Chataway: The construction of television stations is the responsibility of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and not that of the Post Office. As I told my hon. Friend on 19th April, progress depends on technical as well as financial resources.—[Vol. 815, c. 328.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern in areas such as Derbyshire, where there is great need for a booster station for 625-line television for colour transmissions and B.B.C.2 and we shall not be receiving it until late 1973–74? Is it


not intolerable that people who are paying the full licence fee should continue to have such appalling reception and have to accept at the same time that there seems to be no possibility of the building programme, which is not very expensive, being accelerated? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to accelerate it?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that every effort will be made to accelerate it, and note will be taken of the strength of feeling in his constituency to which my hon. Friend refers. I am afraid that this is a very large programme which, in all, must take some time to implement.

Television Licences

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the number of radio and television licences issued by the Post Office valid for a period of less than one year for which a full yearly fee is charged.

Mr. Chataway: The full licence fee is payable by law irrespective of the period for which a licence is issued. I have no figures showing how many licences are issued for less than one year.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a person takes out a licence on, say 23rd August, that licence is back-dated to 31st July, so that he has 11 months' value for a fee which is supposed to cover 12 months? If a commercial organisation indulged in that practice, the general manager would find himself in gaol. It is a fraudulent practice. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the problem with a view to introducing a system similar to that applying to the driving licence, which is dated from the time when one procures it?

Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that the arrangement the hon. Gentleman describes is general. But I am obviously extremely anxious to avoid the fate to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I shall look at any specific instance he cares to send to me.

Post Office Giro

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office Giro.

Mr. Rost: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the estimated loss on the Giro during the current year.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now make a statement about the future of the Post Office Giro.

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether in his review of the National Giro, he will bear in mind the contribution to the reduction in the number of crimes of violence against the person that would flow from greater use of the system by firms and individuals.

Mr. Chataway: I propose to make a statement on the future of the National Giro after Question Time today.

Communal Aerials

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what are the costs incurred per aerial in the administration of the system of licensing communal aerials under the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949.

Mr. Chataway: The information is not available in the form requested by the hon. Member. But I am satisfied that the cost of administering the licence system will be no more than covered by the licence fees and charges collected.

Mr. Hardy: In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? We appreciate that the necessary supervision under the Act must be maintained, but would not he consider abolishing the fee to encourage the use of more communal aerials rather than a proliferation of independent aerials?

Mr. Chataway: I have a responsibility under the Act to ensure that no piece of wireless telegraphy apparatus causes harmful interference with another. It costs money to monitor that. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to expect the users rather than the general taxpayers to meet the cost.

Telephone Kiosks (Vandalism)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many acts of vandalism to public telephone kiosks occurred in the


most recent annual period for which figures are available.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his estimate of the number of vandal-proof telephone kiosks in existence at the latest date.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office tells me there were 152,000 incidents of vandalism in 1970–71. More than 35,000 kiosks have so far been fully or partially fitted with strengthened equipment to resist attack.

Mr. Taylor: As more than half the public depend on public telephone kiosks to contact emergency services, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the courts are treating such acts of vandalism with sufficient seriousness? Is he prepared to discuss the question with our right hon. Friends to see whether we can have tougher penalties for telephone vandals?

Mr. Chataway: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that large areas of Coatbridge and Aidrie are bereft of public telephone kiosks and that there is no hope in an emergency of contacting police, ambulance or other services? Will he do something to see that some of the vandal-proof kiosks are built in those parts of my constituency?

Mr. Chataway: I will ensure that the Post Office takes note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Post Office Monopoly

Mr. Gorst: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will introduce legislation to amend the Post Office Act. 1969, so that the exercise of the Post Office's monopoly as set out in Section 24 of that Act is transferred to the Minister.

Mr. Chataway: I have no present plans for such legislation.

Mr. Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the last Parliament the Conservative Opposition opposed this example of blanket monopoly. Does he agree that it is the habit of our party when in government to honour the views it held in opposition? Will he undertake to look

again at the problem, as it relates to the infrastructure, upon which a great deal of the efficiency of the country depends?

Mr. Chataway: A number of features of the Act would no doubt be different if the present Administration had put it on the Statute Book. But I do not have plans for any legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, I will continue to keep the scope of the monopoly under review, and quite important changes were announced to him in an answer the other day.

Departmental Correspondence

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will take action to ensure that when Members of Parliament and the general public write to his Department they are not kept waiting for up to eight weeks for replies on straightforward matters.

Mr. Chataway: My Department makes every effort to reply to all correspondence as quickly as possible. An interim reply is sent if detailed inquiries are likely to delay a substantive reply.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department, like almost every other, takes four or five weeks to send letters? I appreciate that interim acknowledgments are sent, but Departments take four or five weeks, and as many as eight weeks, very often simply to paraphrase a Member's letter, telling him what he has told the Department. Surely that does not need five to eight weeks? We are used to receiving negative replies and no help from the Department, but could the right hon. Gentleman send them a little earlier in future and not keep us waiting so long?

Mr. Chataway: I note that the hon. Gentleman has put down a similar Question to almost every Department. The average time taken by my Department to reply to Members' letters is between 15 and 21 days.

Hon. Members: Too long.

Stereo Radio Frequencies

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications why the frequencies for stereo radio are not to be made available to the North-East of


England; and whether he will specify the factors that permit stereo radio to be received in the North-West of England but not in the North-East.

Mr. Chataway: No additional frequencies are needed. The determining factor is the need to provide microwave links to carry stereophonic programmes from the studios to the main transmitting stations; and the route which can bring the service most rapidly to as many people as possible goes through Manchester and the North-West to Glasgow.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that another bit of policy is being extended to the North-West and not to the North-East? I will not stand for the North-East being put in a different position from the North-West. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be similar treatment for that area? I congratulate the North-West, but I want both areas to be treated properly. My right hon. Friend is coming to the North-East on Friday and I hope that he can deal with the matter when he arrives, when we shall give him a great welcome.

Mr. Chataway: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The B.B.C. says that it hopes to begin installing the new equipment in the North-East towards the end of 1972.

Pension Rights

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will introduce legislation to allow ex-Post Office employees to have transfer of pension rights when they leave the service of the Post Office before retiring age.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. Facilities for transferring the pension rights of Post Office employees are on a par with those in the Civil Service.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people who have left the Post Office recently, like some constituents of mine—I am thinking of one in particular who is now employed by a Scottish bank, prepared to accept the transfer of pension rights but frustrated because of the lack of legislation—are suffering because of the lack of the right to transfer pension rights? Does he agree that there are difficulties, and will he do something to cure them?

Mr. Chataway: It is not a matter which requires legislation. I understand that it is the Post Office's intention to try to negotiate as wide an extension of transferability as possible.

Telephone Exchange Equipment

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to take steps to improve the supply of exchange equipment from the contractors to the telephone exchanges.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is the responsibility of the Post Office.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that in the recent Post Office Report and Accounts it was made perfectly clear that the average delay in the agreed contractual dates of delivery of telephone equipment had increased from eight and a half months to 13 months and that that delay is the basic cause of the long waiting lists in many cities?

Mr. Chataway: The report shows that the percentage of contracts in delay has improved from 80 per cent. at 31st March, 1970, to 45 per cent. at 31st March this year, so there has been a substantial improvement in the past year. The contracts which are still very much delayed are in the main concerned with orders for Crossbar, with which there have been particular development difficulties.

Mr. McCrindle: I echo what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has said. Will my right hon. Friend please look into the continuing delay in introducing the S.T.D. exchange at Brentwood? Its introduction date seems to be constantly delayed, much to the irritation of local residents and businessmen.

Mr. Chataway: I will ensure that the Post Office takes note of my hon. Friend's complaint.

Dame Irene Ward: And acts.

Mr. Bob Brown: Surely the Minister cannot be satisfied and so complacent. When he says that only 45 per cent. of contracts are now running over time, does not he think that, as the vast majority of the output of the British telecommunications industry is taken by the Post Office, the time is long overdue to


establish in the development areas, such as the North-East, publicly-owned factories to produce telecommunications equipment?

Mr. Chataway: A high proportion of telecommunications manufacturing is done in the development districts. I am not complacent, but I say that the fact that 80 per cent. of such contracts were in delay when the present Opposition left office and only 45 per cent. are in delay now is a measure of progress.

Rural Bus Services

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what discussions he has had with interested bodies about the introduction of post and passenger bus services in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir; this is primarily a matter for the Post Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Pardoe: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that in view of the manic desire of both the National Bus Company and the Post Office to close their separate services in the rural areas, this system is the only way to prolong services in the rural communities? Will he accept a degree of responsibility for them?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office is always willing to consider on their merits applications for postal bus services, though Ministers responsible for the environment have made clear the sort of difficulties that arise in connection with such proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members' Salaries and Emoluments

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Lord President of the Council when, and in what form, he is publishing, with detailed evidence given to the Committee, the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Members' and Ministers' salaries and emoluments, under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle of Handsworth.

Mr. Willey: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Committee

inquiring into Members' salaries and emoluments.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It is hoped to publish this report before Christmas. It will be a Command Paper.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend concede at once that this is now a matter of the greatest urgency affecting junior Ministers as well as private hon. Members in all parts of the House? Has he deduced from the report that is already in his possession that on an auditor's survey I demonstrated to the Committee that my expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily as an hon. Member and in my constituency have exceeded £5,000 in each of the last two years—[Interruption.] Jolly good value for money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—compared with the wholly inadequate recompense of £3,250 a year? In view of these figures, will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to get this situation remedied?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. All I can say is that I regard the whole situation as one of the utmost urgency, as do the Government. The report will be published at the earliest moment possible and a Government statement will be issued at the same time.

Mr. English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very last words that he uttered in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) are a matter of perturbation to some of us? Will he consider the possibility of allowing the report to be published and the Government statement to be made subsequently, after we have had a chance to read the report? In other words, will he please not follow the precedent of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will consider that. I think there might, in certain circumstances, be considerable advantage for the report and the Government's view on it to be published at the same time. However, I will look into the matter very carefully.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the most important


aspect of the report is not hon. Members' salaries but their expenses to enable them to fulfil their job as hon. Members?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are all matters which, of course, can be discussed when the report is published and the Government's views are made known. I would only say at this stage that hon. Members in all parts of the House appreciate the importance of having the expenses to do the job properly, and I am sure that this is one of the issues which has certainly been put before the Committee.

Sir G. Nabarro: Thank you very much, Willie.

European Economic Community

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee of the House of Commons to report upon the future relationship between the British Parliament and the European Communities.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion. The rôle of Select Committees in this whole field is an important matter for further consideration.

Mr. Goodhart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if and when we enter the E.E.C. substantial changes will have to be made in the procedures of this House if it is to be able to influence the regulations and practices made by the Commission in Brussels?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is certainly true that the whole question of the relationship with the Community should be considered carefully; and Select Committees might well have an important part to play in this matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is there not a particular problem which needs to be studied, namely, what arrangements will have to be made to enable hon. Members to discharge their duties both to this House and to the European Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a slightly separate matter, although it must, of course, also be studied.

Mr. Biffen: As an interim arrangement, will my right hon. Friend make sure that every facility is available for

hon. Members to have an up-to-date text of all the regulations and directives that have so far emanated from Brussels?

Mr. Whitelaw: That arises on a subsequent Question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give an assurance that there are now available for supply to every Member of both Houses of Parliament copies of all the rules, regulations, orders, recommendations and edicts issued by the European Economic Community which will become operative on Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community; whether each of these is printed in English; and what is the total number of such instruments held for the use of Members.

Mr. Whitelaw: Agreed English texts of Community instruments binding on the United Kingdom following our entry into the E.E.C. will be made available to the House before the introduction of the relevant legislation. The number of such instruments is about 1,500. Copies will be made available to hon. Members in accordance with the standard procedure for non-parliamentary papers.

Mr. Lewis: That answer is by no means satisfactory because we want a chance to study these—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he may have time to study these 1,000-odd orders, hon. Members do not have that amount of time? Is he aware that these documents should be available? Will he see to it that they are made available in the Library of the House? They are in every language but English. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are unable to remove from the Library such documents as are there? Will he ensure that the necessary papers are available to hon. Members before we become too involved in this escapade?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to enter a competition with the hon. Gentleman about who has the most time to study orders or anything else. I note the importance of this subject. I have said that the texts will be available and I believe that there will be plenty of


time for hon. Members to give them the proper study.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Could my right hon. Friend give an indication of the breakdown of these 1,500 regulations and the like? Is he aware that from a look that some of us have had at the commercial and agricultural regulations respectively, which are in two separate indices, the figure of 1,500 would seem unhappily to be an underestimate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I cannot give my right hon. and learned Friend the breakdown for which he asks. I have done my best to answer the questions that have been put to me.

Mr. McBride: In view of the great importance of the case law precedents which have been promulgated by the judicial court of the Common Market and their impact on, among other things, company law, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do as requested and make available, and quickly, copies of these documents for every hon. Member? Does he appreciate the futility of supplying only one copy to the Library? How can hon. Members assiduously study the detail if only one copy of each document is available?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that I am anxious to help the House in this matter. Translations will be produced to the House as soon as they are available on all these matters. I am anxious to do my best to ensure that the service provided to hon. Members is as good as it can be in all the circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this matter in some way, perhaps with your assistance, Mr. Speaker, on the Adjournment.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements to ensure that the Lord Advocate answers Questions at an earlier stage on the rota than at present.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am always willing to consider changes to the Question roster, through the usual channels, if there appears to be a general wish.

Mr. Dempsey: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Advocate has become known as Scotland's mystery man? Is he further aware that despite that Minister's expertise, although hon. Members may have Questions down to him they are never reached and never answered. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is the Lord Advocate?"] Will the right hon. Gentleman consider returning to the former practice of the Lord Advocate taking his place on the Question roster?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that suggestion about my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. In fact, rather departing from some previous practices, he is a Member of this House, whereas at times in the past Lord Advocates have not been Members. Nevertheless, I will look into the possibility of doing something about the Question roster.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not underrating the enthralling nature of the answers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate might give, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that many of us would prefer a rearrangement to enable my hon. Friend who answers for the Civil Service Department to be allowed to give an oral answer once or twice a year instead of being prevented from doing so by the amount of time taken in answering Scottish Questions?

Mr. Whitelaw: While that question from my right hon. Friend does not strictly arise on this Question, I certainly take note of what he has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the interests of road safety, he will make the fitting of mud flaps behind the rear wheels of all motor vehicles compulsory.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on Wednesday, 10th November.—[Vol. 825, c. 153.]

Sir R. Thompson: I do not precisely recall that answer, but does not my right hon. Friend consider that this is one of the cheapest and easiest steps he could take in aid of road safety? Is he aware of the great strain engendered through windscreens getting completely obscured by mud thrown up from motorways? Does he not think that the suggestion in the Question is sensible and a step which should be taken immediately?

Mr. Peyton: In order to help my hon. Friend, I should like to tell him that my answer on the previous occasion was "No, Sir", because even though this might be a cheap and easy step to take, I doubt whether it would be as effective as my hon. Friend appears to think.

Mineral Workings (Planning Appeals)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy he follows in considering planning appeals relating to permission for mineral workings in predominantly residential areas.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I consider each case on its merits, in the light of the inspector's report.

Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are suffering unhappiness and inconvenience and are incurring expense because of quarrying and the working of minerals in close proximity to private dwellings? What action does he advise these people to take?

Mr. Walker: I am well aware of that and of the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency. As a result of a meeting in my Department, a working party has been set up between the various local authorities to ensure that the conditions in planning consents are imposed from proper environmental considerations.

Mr. McGuire: Is the Secretary of State aware that the problem caused by allowing quarrying and workings near private and council house developments is largely that of lorries depositing muck and slurry on the roads? The Minister should consider stopping it getting on the roads in the first place.

Mr. Walker: There is a diversity of problems, such as noise and disturbance.

Planning authorities are getting much better at imposing very strict controls and conditions when giving planning consents.

Bricks (Metrication)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware that many sections of the building industry are of the opinion that the application of metrication to bricks will have disadvantages; and what steps he proposes to take to meet these objections.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I am not aware that the interim British Standard metric brick currently in general use has greater disadvantages than its imperial counterpart. Field trials in conjunction with the brick industry are to begin in 1972 to determine if a dimensionally co-ordinated size of brick would have advantages.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all sections of the building industry are happy about the desire to go metric? Is there not a great deal of confusion simply because we cannot get the promised White Paper from the Department of Trade and Industry? Will my hon. Friend use his influence with that Department to get the White Paper published so that we might have less tripe in kilograms from Mr. Bowen, Director of the Metrication Board?

Mr. Channon: I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the timber trade is very advanced in the transfer to metrication and that this will have to be taken into consideration when he is discussing the question of metrication in the brick industry and the associated building trades?

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

A46, Cheltenham (Speed Limit)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will maintain the speed limit on A46 within Cheltenham until the local authority agrees that it be altered.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If local administration is to amount to anything, is not this the sort of decision which should be taken locally and not by central authorities?

Mr. Peyton: A great deal of importance is attached to local opinion on the question of speed limits. But it is, I think, desirable that speed limits should be realistic, and in the experience of my Department they are better observed where there is some movement to make them a little more realistic.

Kielder Reservoir and Tyne-Tees Aqueduct

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the amount of grant to the Northumbrian River Authority for the construction of the Kidder reservoir and the Tyne-Tees aqueduct.

Mr. Peter Walker: I will make an announcement as soon as possible after receipt of the relevant technical and financial information from the authority.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the extreme importance of this scheme for the whole region, and especially for industrial development, will the right hon.. Gentleman give an undertaking that the grant will be substantial and that he will consider sympathetically the application coming before him?

Mr. Walker: I recognise the importance of this decisison, but I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot commit myself until I have the information for which I asked last April. I shall make a decision as soon as I receive that information.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that he is willing to receive representations on this matter in view of its very great importance to all of us in the North-East?

Mr. Walker: After the information has been received, I shall be pleased to receive the hon. Gentleman's representations if he wishes to make them.

Historic Monuments (Sale of Souvenirs)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what annual

income has accrued to his Department by the sale at historic monuments of souvenirs designed for his Department.

Mr. Peter Walker: In 1970–71 the net income from the sale of souvenirs by this Department was just under £21,000. I expect it to increase this year.

Mr. Boyden: May I take it from that answer that the Government's doctrinaire attitude to public enterprise does not apply in this case and that this form of public enterprise will be encouraged?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. We have no intention of hiving off the souvenir industry.

Urban Street Junctions

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the progress of his consultations about the proposal to ban waiting near urban street junctions.

Mr. Peyton: I consulted over 70 organisations and am studying their replies. I have been gratified by the welcome given to the aim of the proposal though naturally there have been many comments about its application.

Mr. Blaker: Safety is obviously very important, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if his proposals are applied without flexibility in resort towns they may do considerable damage to the economies of those towns? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Peyton: I note my hon. Friend's very sensible observation. I shall think about it before I reach a final decision.

Road Safety Crossings

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider the present traffic volume requirements needed before road safety crossings are provided at dangerous road junctions.

Mr. Peyton: I am reconsidering the criteria for traffic signals at junctions.

Mr. Cox: I welcome that reply because I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a real problem with young children and


especially elderly people. Unfortunately, because of the lack of safety crossings at many road junctions, there is a total disregard by many motorists of people's difficulties in crossing the road. I hope that we shall hear in the very near future the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for improving the situation.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to give the impression that there is a wholesale disregard of these crossings, which play a very useful part in road safety, as I am sure he would acknowledge.

Mr. Cox: indicated assent.

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular difficulty in mind, I will look into it if he wishes me to do so.

Mr. Spearing: Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on why the road safety manual for pedestrians has been in preparation in his Department for over three years? Can he tell us when it will be published?

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on that point, I will answer it.

Housing Improvement Grants

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why only one-quarter of the money granted for housing improvement in the year ended 31st August, 1971, £7·9 million out of £28·3 million, went on standard grants for installing bathrooms, inside lavatories and hot water systems.

Mr. Peter Walker: More of the house owners concerned no doubt chose to improve their properties to a higher standard with the aid of the more generous discretionary grants.

Mr. Allaun: I very much welcome the improvement work, but is it not a fact that this money is largely being spent on luxury improvements which the Municipal Engineering Journal describes as weekend country cottage bonanzas instead of on the vital and important job of putting bathrooms in the houses of 11 million men, women and children who need them?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in two respects. First, the discretionary grants frequently include the standard amenities, such as the installation of bathrooms, toilets and facilities of that type. Therefore, both types of grant deal with the basic amenities. So the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect. Secondly, there is no doubt from the pattern of improvement grants that the great mass of them are being made in the urban areas, and particularly the areas with the worst housing.

Mr. Freeson: Reverting to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about the areas where the money is being spent, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the percentage of grant aid which is going to rented properties and say whether it is increasing or remaining static?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give the specific figures, but I have already said what will happen as a result of the extra grants for which we are providing. In the development areas, 103,000 public rented houses will be improved.

Traffic Signal Equipment

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what stocks of traffic signal equipment are kept by him or his agents; and what is the range of period between his ordering of traffic signal equipment, its delivery and installation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Neither my Department nor its agents hold stocks. Until recently the delivery periods varied from 26 weeks for standard installations to about double this time for special equipment. Installation time generally adds about two weeks. Following discussions with the manufacturers, delivery times for standard installations have been reduced to 16 weeks and subject to some changes in ordering procedure which are now being discussed with the local authority associations, this can be reduced to 11–12 weeks.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the Minister think, in view of this technological age, that it is very desirable that stocks of these traffic signals should be kept and their delivery timed even more quickly than it has been recently?

Mr. Heseltine: We are already discussing this with the local authority associations and the manufacturers, and I think the hon. Member will accept that, as we have achieved a reduction from 26 to 16 weeks during the last 12 months, this is a major step forward.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have Question No. 16 on the Paper today. I was told at 2.35 this afternoon that it would be coupled with Question No. 1. By that time it had been passed by.

Mr. William Hamilton: Where was the hon. Member?

Mr. Archer: I was taking a constituent to the Gallery. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to ask Question No. 16 now?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. It is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member may make representations about this to the Minister, but it is not a matter for me.

COVENTRY TOOL ROOM WORKERS (DISPUTE)

Mr. Maurice Edelman (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the threat of a massive strike at Coventry now imminent.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The Executive Council of the Engineering Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers yesterday endorsed its Coventry District Committee's call for a strike from Friday evening by some 7,000 Coventry tool room workers. This followed a ballot of the workers concerned in which 54 per cent. voted in favour of strike action.
The strike has been called in protest against the formal notice of termination of the Coventry Tool Room Agreement by the Coventry Engineering Employers' Association following unsuccessful discussions under the industry's national procedure.
Under the agreement the earnings of Coventry tool room workers have, since

1941, been related to the earnings of skilled production workers in the district.
I am seriously concerned about the effects on employment in Coventry and elsewhere of the proposed strike and I have arranged for both sides to meet my officers in separate discussions tomorrow.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Minister aware that his invitation to the parties concerned will be widely welcomed, above all in Coventry? Is he further aware that there is a general desire that a just settlement should be reached of a potentially disastrous situation involving at least 100,000 workers?

Mr. Carr: It is because, as I said, I am so concerned about the seriousness, and particularly the potential seriousness, of this dispute that I have asked both parties to come to see me so that I can be fully informed about the full facts of the situation and what may be done about it.

Mr. Heffer: We on this side of the House certainly welcome the fact that the conciliation machinery of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is going to be used in relation to this dispute, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why up to now there has been no question raised by the Government about the cancellation of this 30-year-old agreement by the employers? Is it true, as alleged by Mr. Andy Boyle, Coventry district secretary of the A.U.E.W., that the employers have been pressurised by the Government to cancel the agreement? Was there, as has been suggested, an inquiry by the Department into the agreement, and if there was an inquiry will the right hon. Gentleman publish the results of that inquiry? Is it not a fact that this industry has been strife free for many years, and that the toolmakers are the most highly-skilled workers and have been retained in their work because of this agreement? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in the circumstances, these men have been shabbily treated?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that it would be wrong for me to be drawn into any discussion about the merits of this case, and I do not intend to be so drawn. On matters of fact, it is not true that the employers have been pressurised by my Department into the action they have


taken. It is not true. That is a matter of fact. It is true that my officers have had discussions with the employers in Coventry, just as officers of my Department had discussions with these and many other employers when the party opposite was in power. This is the normal practice—of the Ministry of Labour, as it was, with the Department of Employment as it now is—and it goes on year in and year out.

Mr. John Page: Would my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of jobs, outside those of the 7,000 union members concerned, which might be in jeopardy if this strike took place?

Mr. Carr: Judging by the experience of the last few weeks when there has been a strike on a Monday and a lockout on a Tuesday, it looks as if about 13,000 workers would be immediately affected, but my fear is that this number would probably escalate if the strike were to be a prolonged one and not simply a one-day one.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his Departmental Officers in Coventry explained to the local Press this lunch time that in their hasty announcement about the withdrawal of unemployment benefit yesterday they made a mistake? Further to that, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the administration of the grading and class provisions of Section 22 of the National Insurance Act, 1965, may mean that members of unions not officially involved in this dispute may be debarred from benefits as from next Monday?

Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Member must realise that the question he is asking now is rather different from the Question to which I have replied, and I really think that I must have notice of such a detailed matter as that.

Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that the President of the A.U.E.W., Mr. Hugh Scanlon, yesterday said "This is not a fight of our choosing"? Is it not a fact, which some of us find extraordinary, that here is an example of an employers' association arbitrarily cancelling an agreement without prior negotiation and yet receiving no word of condemnation from the Minister? If this had

been the other way round the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend would have been condemning the trade union. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have the courage to say that the employers are wrong on this issue?

Mr. Carr: I totally reject the hon. Member's allegation. I cannot help feeling that on this occasion, as on some previous occasions, he is more concerned with stirring up trouble than staying it. I have condemned no one in this, nor am I going to. The employers claim, as I said in my statement, that they went through the procedure, and this is among the facts which I seek to establish at the talks which I am having tomorrow.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, said that there had been discussions between his Department and the Coventry employers. Of course, one understands that these discussions go on the whole time; but, in view of the seriousness of the situation which is developing, can the right hon. Gentleman tell this House—I think this House has a right to know—what was the nature of the actual discussions which took place between his Department and the employers?

Mr. Carr: Of course not.

An Hon. Member: Why?

Mr. Carr: Discussions which my officers have with employers or with unions in the normal course of their business have always been confidential and should always be confidential, otherwise these sorts of relationships, which are absolutely vital and always have been vital to the working of my Department, simply could not go on. What is happening now is no different from what has happened before under the previous Government, or Administrations of both parties before that.

POST OFFICE GIRO

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Post Office Giro.
The Giro lost £6 million in 1969–70 and again in 1970–71, though it made some offsetting contribution to the fixed


overheads of the Post Office. I have, therefore, undertaken a review of the service in consultation with the Post Office Board and with the assistance of Cooper Brothers who advised against closure and made a number of recommendations for changes. The Post Office agrees that there should be a substantial reshaping of the service, involving strengthened management, improved financial control, changes in marketing policy and, in due course, a revised tariff structure. On this basis it believes that Giro can be made to pay and can offer a competitive service to the public, to commerce, to local authorities and Government, as well as a means of modernising the Post Office's facilities in money transfer. In the light of this and the consultants' views, the Government have accepted the Board's conclusion that Giro should continue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper about this matter.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend explain precisely how this decision is to be reconciled with the intention of the Conservative Party to ensure that creeping nationalisation is not continued by the subsidisation of activities in competition with the private sector out of the proceeds of a monopoly nationalised industry?

Mr. Chataway: There has never been any suggestion by the Government that the Giro was an inappropriate service for post offices to run; indeed, most post offices in Western Europe do so. Equally, we would not be authorising the Giro's continuance if the studies and the consultants' report to which I have referred had not led to the conclusion of the Post Office that this service can pay its way, and it is on that basis that its progress will continue to be monitored.

Mr. John D. Grant: I congratulate the Minister on rescuing this excellent public service from the attentions of his backwoodsmen on the Front Bench and the back benches opposite—we have just had a good example of that. I hope that this means that the threat to jobs has now ended. In view of the damage that has been done to the service by the uncertainty of the past year, will the Minister

extend the period to be allowed for the service to become viable, and by how long? Further, what steps will he take to allow more Government business to be done by the Giro so that it gets a fairer chance of financial success?

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, but no rescue operation would have been necessary if the Giro had been launched on a more reasonable basis. It is the serious errors that were made, to which the inquiry has pointed, which have led to the severe difficulties which the Giro has faced. The new management, in implementing the recommendations to which I have referred, will set new targets in consultation with me. The Government will deal with the Giro on the same basis as they deal with other services, and will be prepared to use the Giro where it is considered to be in the best interests of the Department concerned.

Mr. Rost: Is not my right hon. Friend's statement an admission, if ever there was one, that the State is not a suitable body to run a commercial enterprise such as the Giro.—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Rolls-Royce?"]—Instead of making proposals to run down the Giro further, is not this an appropriate moment for the Minister to tell the House that he is prepared to consider selling off the Giro to privaite enterprise so that it can be run efficiently as a commercial success?

Mr. Chataway: For a number of reasons this is not an enterprise which could be hived off in any shape or form. I believe that the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends would not wish the Government to approach this issue in a doctrinaire way. Faced as we were with a service over which serious errors had been made, I believe my hon. and right hon. Friends would wish the Government to commission the advice of independent consultants and then to act upon it, as we have done.

Mr. Simon Mahon: May I express to the right hon. Gentleman my profound relief that the jobs of 3,000 of my constituents have been saved? I am most grateful. Merseyside could not have stood it within the framework of 51,000 unemployed. I also express my gratitude to him for his courtesy over a long


period. Would he not say that the patience and loyalty of the employees of Giro needed to be recognised; and may I take it, since he did not mention redundancy, that there will not be any in the reorganisation?

Mr. Chataway: There are no proposals for redundancies. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice over a long period, and I appreciate his concern in this matter. Despite the serious errors to which I have referred, a great deal of energy and idealism has been invested in this enterprise in total.

Mr. Richard: We on this side of the House understand that the Minister has to try to, placate some of his hon. Friends. In view of what we have been saying for about 12 months, I now say to the Minister, "Thank you very much. It is a pity you did not do it earlier."

Mr. Chataway: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is a great pity that the Giro was launched on the basis of hopelessly optimistic estimates of business, and that investment was undertaken on the basis of a million accounts at the end of a year. If it had not at some point fallen under the baleful influence of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), with his particular mixture of Socialist euphoria and self-deception, we should not be in this difficulty.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great sympathy for him in having to sort out yet another error of judgment and management of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. To put this matter in context, will my right hon. Friend say how many jobs would have been lost in a development area if this service had been shut down, and what would have been the cost of shutting it down?

Mr. Chataway: The costs involved in closure would have been very substantial, perhaps about £12 million. About 3,500 jobs would have been in jeopardy in Bootle.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The matter cannot be debated now.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory replies, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest moment to the detriment of the Minister.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 3RD DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. John Gorst.

Mr. Norman Fowler.

Mr. William Hamilton.

COMPTON COMMITTEE'S REPORT (PRESS STATEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) raised as a suggested contempt of the House the alleged publication of details of the Compton Report before they had been made available to the House.
I have considered the matter and rule that it does not fall within the ambit of privilege, which includes contempt.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that not unexpected reply. Will you give consideration to the general principle that almost every day the Government issue statements to the Press before they are given to the House, and then come along to the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on this matter. The hon. Member and I had an interchange of views on 25th October. I said then that it was not a matter for the Chair and that the Chair does not pronounce on the merits or otherwise of the issue raised. All I have to rule on is whether it is a matter of privilege or contempt. If the hon. Member objects to the practice and wishes to criticise the Minister, he must do this in some other way, not in a point of order to me.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: But, Mr. Speaker, I am not on this particular case. I am asking whether you will see that something is done about this matter in future. After all, you have the duty of protecting back benchers' rights, and it must be remembered that back benchers have very limited time in debates. If the custom


is to be that the Government come along and take up time by making statements at the expense of back benchers' time when those statements have already been made to the Press, I am suggesting that if you give such a right to Ministers you are, perhaps unconsciously, depriving back-bench Members of their time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I allow the hon. Member to pursue his point of order, or alleged point of order, in that way I shall be doing exactly what he says I should not do.

STANDING ORDER No. 9 (MOTIONS)

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) yesterday in moving the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, you will see set out at the top of column 222 of the OFFICIAL REPORT a very full Motion containing certain highly contentious words.
However, apparently, when it reached you, Sir, as will be seen from the bottom of that column, many of those words had been deleted. Many of us realised the difficulties you faced yesterday in not being able to read the Motion that was before you, but it is interesting to note

that in the OFFICIAL REPORT highly contentious words have been deleted.
It can be seen from today's Order Paper that the Motion before the House has been further reduced in size. I should like to ask about the procedure in these matters. Does a Member have the right to alter the wording of a Motion which he puts before the House? I should like your ruling on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in warning me of this point of order, which raises a not uninteresting matter of practice.
An hon. Member can seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House in a form of words which quite often is written out by him in calligraphy that is not always as clear as it might be. So far as HANSARD is concerned the words set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT are the words which I used. I am not certain whether it is necessary in such a case for the Chair to repeat the words of an hon. Member; it might be taking up a valuable minute of the time of the House. It is only a matter of practice. The substantive Motion is to move the Adjournment of the House. In regard to what is on the Order Paper, I am told it is well-established practice for the Table to reduce the terms of the Member's original Motion to a shorter version. I hope that will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPTON COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
There is one matter on which almost the whole House will be in agreement, and that is the painstaking, careful and thorough manner in which Sir Edmund Compton has carried out his work. It is exactly what one would expect of him. Whatever one's conclusions about the Compton Committee's Report, it is possible to agree that the depth of his investigation shows what a thick cloud of fantasy has mushroomed from a handful of incidents, however important some of them may seem to be.
Let us look at what was asked of the troops in the early morning hours of 9th August this year. They were asked to pick up some 342 people, many of whom were living in remote areas, and many of whom were believed to be armed and capable of cold-blooded murder. This operation had to be conducted in secrecy and at speed so that one suspect could not warn another and before crowds could gather to hinder or actively oppose the task in hand. In the cities and towns such hindrance or opposition was a very real possibility.
Let us remember that, rightly or wrongly, many of the soldiers involved in the operation must have believed that among the suspects they were picking up were some at least who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the murder of their comrades, of policemen and of civilians, including members of the illegal organisations of which the suspects were thought to be members. They were thought, too, to be those who had led and used civilians in acts of petrol-bombing and stoning of troops and had also used children against troops; they were thought to be involved in bombing incidents, and so on.
In the light of bow few complaints were made, I can only conclude that the Home Secretary was right yesterday when he said that the record of events reflects great credit on our security forces who carried out a difficult and dangerous operation in adverse circumstances with commendable restraint and discipline. I would echo those words.
Turning to the interrogation, I wish to refer to paragraph 6 of the Home Secretary's preface to the report which states that the I.R.A. has three main aims: first, to intimidate; secondly, to inhibit normal political activity; and, thirdly, to cause the public in Great Britain to become sickened. It must be clear that any attempt to inhibit the activities of the security forces is a useful part of that campaign. These allegations about the treatment of internees must be put, at least in part, into this context. Every allegation is a potential hindrance in bringing terrorists to book and preventing the deaths of British soldiers and innocent civilians.
I have no intention of going now into the specific allegations against individuals or their acceptance or repudiation in the report before us. I feel that we should have before us this afternoon no fewer than three documents: first, the Compton Report, which we have; secondly, all the reports of allegations which have appeared in the media and which on some occasions have been repeated; and, thirdly, an account—and a good account—of the brutality, torture and, if I may use the word, barbarism that has been perpetrated by the I.R.A. against troops and against civilians. This is the contrast which we need.
There is one vital point that must be made about the interrogations. A clear distinction must be drawn between principles which guide those who conduct interrogations and the way in which this set of interrogations was handled. Sir Edmund, as I understand, is saying that this set of interrogations was conducted in accordance with principles as laid down. I thought that what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was saying yesterday and what the Privy Council Committee is all about is as to whether these principles are correctly drawn.
I wish to spend a moment or two in dealing with the sources of these allegations. I want to ask one specific question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which I appreciate he may not be able to answer this afternoon. Paragraph 13 of the Committee's report refers to the Association for Legal Justice, which apparently was responsible for obtaining the written statements containing the allegations purporting to be signed by the


complainants. Could the Home Secretary say something about the officers of this Association and its activities and aims? I suggest that information of this kind might be very revealing, and I hope I shall receive an answer on this matter in due course.
On the circulation of the allegations, no one would be more ready than I to recognise the appalling difficulties in which the media, the Press and television, find themselves in terms of the situation in Northern Ireland today. There is hardly any statement which does not offend someone or raise a charge of bias. I have myself been arguing one with the B.B.C.
Perhaps I might give a further example of the sort of difficulties which arise. Last night on B.B.C.'s television news at 9 o'clock a reporter in Dublin, a Mr. Martin Bell, gave what he alleged was the reaction of the Government in Dublin to the Compton Report. He said that the view held there was that the report was unsatisfactory and that material, presumably the material assembled by the Association for Legal Justice, was likely to be forwarded to the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. John Mendelson: He did not say that. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No.

Mr. Mendelson: Stick to the facts.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point later.

Mr. Russell Kerr: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No, I will not give way. I must try to get on, because I want to give a further example of what I am saying.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very limited time for this debate. It is not an easy debate. I hope that hon. Members will be allowed to make their speeches.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The report to which I am referring—

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) made a statement to the effect that on the B.B.C.'s television news at 9 o'clock Mr. Martin Bell referred to what the Dublin Government may or may not think, and went on to say: "presumably on the evidence assembled by the Association for Legal Justice", or words to that effect. I saw that programme, and that is not so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) must take responsibility for what he says.

Mr. Mendelson: He is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that other hon. Members do not agree with it does not lead to a point of order. It leads to a point of argument in a later speech. The Chair cannot allow points of that nature.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a well established practice that if an hon. Member is misleading the House on a point of fact he must be challenged.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is nothing of the sort. Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue with what I was saying, he would not have got in such a welter.

Mr. Mendelson: Stick to the facts.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We are discussing a very serious matter. It is a matter upon which I, for one, do not wish to raise the temperature in any way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As I go on, it may become apparent to hon. Members that when I used the words "presumably the material assembled by the Association for Legal Justice", I did so because this was said at 9 o'clock in the evening on a day when the Compton Report itself, which is 73 pages long, was first available in this House at 4 o'clock in the afternoon—

Mr. Russell Kerr: That means that the hon. Gentleman could not have read it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I find it very difficult to see how the members of the Dublin Government could have had copies of the report in their hands in time to read it, analyse it and make a judgment on it at such a senior level—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Like the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: —so that a statement of this gravity could have been put out in time for the 9 o'clock news. That seems to be an example of the instant treatment of information and opinion, and it is one of the great difficulties that we face on sensitive questions of this kind.
In setting up the Privy Councillors' Committee, the Government have recognised that there are sensitive questions which must be looked at and which have been looked at previously. I think that perhaps the media themselves might at some point consider that where they are dealing with very sensitive matters they should look at the situation with a view to seeing whether they cannot lay down some kind of procedure in this sort of situation. If they fail to do that, one must hope that the public at large will learn to exercise a more critical discrimination about what they read and hear.
To illustrate the way in which the allegations have been used, perhaps I might refer to the document published by the Anti-Internment League which was prepared for a rally on 31st October. It said:
… detainees were beaten up and generally maltreated during the first 48 hours of their imprisonment. A smaller group was systematically tortured. The British police played a major role in this.
I ask hon. Members to use their influence to see that a message goes out from this House both to the troops and to the public at large saying that this kind of statement is a malicious falsehood.
There are other allegations which include disgusting suggestions about the handling of their genitals, walking them over glass, and so on. From some of the facts that Sir Edmund has revealed,

one would think that climbing a mole hill would have been portrayed as at least a forced ascent of Ben Nevis in a blizzard.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman has not read the report.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I read it last night.
I heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talking about the 1 per cent. who have transgressed. The hon. Gentleman was dealing with questions of ill-treatment. Even if we accept that 1 per cent. may have transgressed in that respect, that is far divorced from brutality or torture. Let us also remember that there has always been 1 per cent. in any force, however well disciplined, who have transgressed in some minor matters. There were such incidents in Aden under the Government of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I make no point about that except that it was made on television last night in an opposite sense. There were incidents in Malaya. There were similar 1 per cents. in the R.U.C. and the "B" Specials.
Why do we not think a little more about the 99 per cent. who are libelled and slandered by loose and foul accusations which some people seem to take delight in making and which organisations like Amnesty have made, alleging, without adequate investigation, that detainees have been tortured?
Here, I pay tribute to the courage of Mr. Marreco, who has resigned from Amnesty—

Mr. Peter Archer: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No, I shall not give way—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) makes allegations against respectable organisations, he must give way. He has a moral duty. Custom and practice rule that he must give way if he names an organisation and that organisation's representative sits in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to calm down. The process


of democratic debate includes the making of allegations about people, their theories and their policies. It is part of the process.

Mr. Archer: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No. It is important, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said yesterday, that we should discuss how far a democratic assembly is
… entitled to sanction the ill-treatment of those committed to the custody of soldiers or police in order o save the lives of others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th November, 1971, Vol. 826, c. 218.]
This is an important and fundamental question, and it is right to discuss it. To quote The Times, which was commenting on what the right hon. Gentleman said:
… it is … no easy matter to decide … at the height of a vicious and sustained campaign of terror, at what point legitimate pressure passes into physical ill-treatment. There is no rule of thumb, and there will probably always be a disputable zone.
It is not easy. It never has been. It was not in Malaya, and it was not in Aden, when the last Government were in charge.
In this connection, it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) expressing his horror at British standards of interrogation. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might care to note the hon. Gentleman's views in this connection on the procedures laid down by the Labour Government in 1965 and amended in 1967.
This report, whatever else it has done, has dismissed charges—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary to give notice to a fellow Member if one is going to make a deliberate attack on him? Did the hon. Gentleman in fact do so?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I should expect the hon. Gentleman to be present at a debate of such importance.
This report, whatever else it has done, has dismissed charges against the security forces of brutality and torture. It has shown evidence in some cases of ill-treatment, but we must set against that

such incidents as the murder of three young soldiers in a country lane, the tarring and feathering of young girls, a young girl disfigured for life, falling masonry and trapped bodies when post office buildings and the like are bombed. A schoolchild was shot by the gunmen in my constituency even this afternoon. That is the background that we also have to remember, with what the right hon. Gentleman so rightly said yesterday, against which this report was written and against which these interrogations were conducted.

4.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Government welcome the opportunity of this debate. It is a matter of great importance and rightly arouses great concern and interest throughout the country. It is also wise that we should debate the matter as a specific issue, apart from the general debate on the whole tragedy of Northern Ireland which I believe we shall be having in the not-very-distant future.
I certainly join my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in welcoming the report and paying sincere tribute to the thoroughness and impartiality with which the investigation was carried out by Sir Edmund Compton and his colleagues. I cannot think of any country in the world where such a standard of thoroughness and impartiality would have been maintained.
It is fair to say to some people in other countries who criticise Britain in this Northern Ireland situation—sometimes, I think, influenced by the propaganda of the I.R.A.—ask yourselves whether, if in your country similar accusations had been made against the security authorities in a similar desperate situation, you would have had an inquiry of this kind and of this character so thoroughly carried out.
Inevitably, there have been cries of "whitewash" from some quarters. One expected that. It was inevitable and expected that some people would say that this was a whitewash operation. I do not believe that any credence will be given to that by the House of Commons. Those of us who know Sir Edmund Compton and have read his report know that this


was no whitewashing operation; it was a genuine operation designed to ascertain and make clear the facts. Indeed, the reception accorded to the report by the Press this morning very much confirms that judgment.
It is a matter for regret that the men concerned, with few or practically no exceptions, were not prepared to give evidence to Sir Edmund and his colleagues. There is no doubt that this was partly due to pressure upon them, which one can well understand. But it is surely also apparent now that the stories which have been put around by others on their behalf would not have stood up to investigation if the men themselves had come before Sir Edmund and his colleagues. The effect, therefore, of their non-participation in this inquiry is that the evidence given by the security authorities has been subject to the most rigorous cross-examination, whereas the evidence given by the people who are complaining has not been examined or investigated at all but rests still on mere supposition and third-party allegation.
In examining what Sir Edmund and his colleagues say in their report, we must bear in mind that those who gave evidence on behalf of the sccurity authorities were subject to rigorous cross-examination, whereas the allegations on the other side could not be similarly examined.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: I should like clarification on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about cross-examination. One of the major complaints against the Compton Inquiry was the terms of reference within which it was held. People were not required, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry, to be heard in public and to give sworn evidence, and all testimony was not required to be open to cross-examination. I should like to ask who cross-examined these people on behalf of the security forces, who cross-examined the people giving evidence, and on whose behalf did they cross-examine them.

Mr. Maudling: Cross-examination of the security authorities—the police and the Army—was carried out by Sir Edmund Compton and his colleagues. I must say to the hon. Lady, knowing well,

as she does, the true situation in Northern Ireland, that to expect people to give evidence in public on these matters and keep their lives thereafter is expecting a great deal. One must recognise quite clearly that those who are identified as arresting the I.R.A. and, even more, those who are identified as giving information about the I.R.A. will suffer death thereafter. That is of fundamental importance. We cannot get away from that.
There were broadly two circumstances which Sir Edmund and his colleagues investigated, and they are separate, and should be kept separate: first, the circumstances of the arrest of those who were detained on 9th August, and, secondly, the different question of the interrogations of a small number of those who were detained. I will deal with both points separately.
First, on the circumstances of the arrests on 9th August, there have been widespread stories of brutality, of beating up, and even, I think, of throwing men out of helicopters. These stories have been given wide publicity by the I.R.A.'s propaganda machine, which is very effective indeed. I will look at the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I cannot give him an answer straight away. We must recognise that wild allegations were deliberately fostered by the I.R.A. and their supporters, and in case after case of these arrests the Compton Report exposes the falsity of the claims which were made.
The fact is that, as my hon. Friend said, 342 men were arrested that morning in very difficult circumstances. There was clearly a need for absolute secrecy so that they would not know what was to happen. The men concerned were likely to resist arrest, and many of them were likely to be armed. The arrests took place often in areas where police and civilians had been murdered within a few days before, and the danger of a riot situation developing was very grave indeed. In all these circumstances, I believe that the Army's performance in arresting these 342 men was highly creditable. No force but the minimum necessary was used to achieve arrest. There is no evidence whatever of deliberate brutality on the part of any of the Army forces involved.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am very sensitive to the pressures on everybody


in the House. Every word we utter is counted, and sometimes counted against lives. I say this advisedly. The troops went into areas where they suspected arms. I am not complaining about the way they acted or the reasons why they went in. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any non-Catholic house was entered by the troops and whether any non-Catholic suspect was picked up and sent before the Compton Inquiry?

Mr. Maudling: The people who were picked up—I think that was the hon. Gentleman's phrase—were those who were believed to be concerned in the I.R.A.'s campaign of murder and terrorism. Members of the I.R.A. are not drawn from the Protestant community. It is quite wrong to suggest in any way that the British Army is other than impartial in sectarian matters. We must establish that point. The Army's job is to deal with people who are involved in an armed terrorist campaign.
Looking at the criticisms made by Sir Edmund Compton and his colleagues, really only four remain. First is the forced participation in the deception operation which involved a helicopter. I do not fully accept the criticism made by Sir Edmund Compton on this point. I do not follow it. Sir Edmund adds that in this case also there was no physical damage to the men involved. I refer now to the "obstacle course" about which the most wild stories have been circulated. In this connection Sir Edmund says that there was a complete absence of any evidence of physical injury.
I come, thirdly, to the special exercises at Ballykinler. Here, too, there was no intention to hurt anyone. The most painstaking examination of 20 individual cases revealed two injured, one wholly by accident, and another who did not receive medical treatment for a cut arm as soon as he should have received it. But these are the only detailed complaints in the report of a process of arresting 342 people.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I do not think any of us believes that the Army was guilty of brutality. What concerns us all, accepting what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is that surely history proves that once one accepts this sort of standard it

is not long before excesses occur which are approved. This is the great danger. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that it does not matter whether there was brutality or not? If it were mental torture, that was wrong.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman is on a different point, to which I shall come in a moment. The arrests which the Army was detailed to make were carried out with scrupulous regard for the principle of the minimum use of force. There is no reason to criticise the Army for the way in which it carried out this extremely difficult but necessary operation on the morning of 9th August.
I come next to the second and separate point, called, I think, interrogation in depth—this is not a good phrase, but it has been used. It is shown by Sir Edmund and his colleagues that in the course of interrogation various methods were used. Placing people against the wall; the use of hooding over a period; the sound; the frugal diet—all these are methods which were used and are detailed in the report. This is the major point to which the House ought to address itself. I must stress again that there was no permanent injury of either a physical or a mental nature to any of the men concerned. This is confirmed by the evidence of the medical authorities, and the Compton Report stresses particularly the faith that the Committee had in the medical officers who gave evidence.
The purpose of the methods described is twofold. First, they are designed to ensure the security of both those who are interrogating and those being interrogated. This is a very important point. In a situation where murder is rife, the identification of individual members of the security forces, and the identification, either in interrogation or possibly even in newspapers, of people who, under interrogation, have given information, may lead to their murder. That is a fact that we must not neglect. The second purpose of these methods is to create a feeling of fatigue, a sense of isolation, which is part of the process of interrogation to obtain the information which the security forces need for the battle they are fighting.
I want to deal with this question closely. What we have to consider is


whether these methods are acceptable in the circumstances in which they were used. It is a perfectly proper point to consider. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) confirmed this yesterday. It involves difficult factors of judgment and other important matters. The interrogation yielded information of great value that would not otherwise have been available, either in the volume or in the time scale required—information about individuals concerned in the I.R.A. campaign. It yielded information about the command structure of the Official and Provisional I.R.A. and about the location of their arms dumps and weapons, information without which the security forces cannot possibly defend the ordinary civilian against the campaign of terror and murder. That is my first point—that the information received has been of great and growing value because all information leads to further information.
Secondly, it is right to recall the activities of the I.R.A. I am not going to argue—no rational person would—that it can in any circumstances be said that the ends justify totally the means. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would listen to my argument. It is a coherent argument.
It is fair to point out that this year there have been over 800 bomb explosions in Northern Ireland. In the hospitals of Northern Ireland nearly 600 victims of violence have been treated, more than 200 of them British soldiers. Almost two-thirds of the civilian casualties were women, including young girls maimed and disfigured for life in explosions in the offices in which they were working. In another explosion a young woman lost a leg and had to have 80 stitches in her other leg. In another incident a young mother making tea at a dance lost a leg and fingers of both hands in an explosion. One of the girl victims in the Londonderry tarring and feathering has had her sight affected. There are cases of women still suffering mental effects weeks after being injured.
These are the facts. These things have been done by the I.R.A. They are being done to prosecute the I.R.A. campaign, and the Provisional I.R.A. has openly acknowledged that it has committed these

acts. It says that it is sorry for the injured, for women who have been injured, who are in hospital or who have been disfigured for life, but that it is doing it to further its political campaign. [Interruption.]
I am trying to make my consecutive argument on this very important point. First, the interrogation yielded information extremely valuable in the campaign against the I.R.A. Second, the nature of the I.R.A.s campaign is one that brings about suffering to a vast number of people. Therefore, we have as a House to recognise the moral problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday. How far is it acceptable or permissible to go, in a democracy, in the defence of innocent people against terrorism of this kind? This is a real dilemma, a moral conflict of the kind which has already arisen in the matter of capital punishment. It is more difficult in this case because it is an argument of degree. If we are talking about capital punishment it is either capital punishment or not. In this case there is a wide range of degree between, at the one extreme, asking suspects whether they will give particular information and, at the other, torturing them. Torture is not acceptable, but merely asking people if they would be good enough to help in the investigation is equally not acceptable.
We must draw a line between these two extremes. This has been done in the past. Similar methods have been used in previous campaigns against terrorists, and the principles on which the security forces, the police and the Army are operating are principles laid down in the past and confirmed by the present Administration. The Government think that the right thing now is to consider whether these principles are right, whether a line is to be drawn—and a line must be drawn—between doing nothing and doing too much, and whether it should be drawn at a different point. One must also consider whether the definition of the line and the clarity of its definition is satisfactory for those who have to operate it in practice. For these purposes we thought it right to appoint a Committee of Privy Councillors presided over by Lord Parker of Waddington which will be able to help this House with advice and guidance over deciding future action.

Mr. James Callaghan: The principles have been closely considered in the past, but I am not sure that the methods deriving from those principles have been so closely considered. Is it now the intention of the Government that the Parker Commission should consider the methods deriving from those principles, as the cases have been raised and the practices set out in the report?

Mr. Maudling: What I was trying to say is that there are two points, one of principle and, secondly, whether the principles are closely enough drawn to give adequate guidance to those who have to carry them out These are the two points that have to be examined and should be examined by the Privy Councillor's Committee.

Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1965 an interdepartmental committee laid down a directive for interrogation, but it was concerned exclusively with certain prohibitions. It sought to set certain limits beyond which interrogators should not go, and I believe that it was the first attempt by any British Government to set such limits. There were no such rules established before 1965. The question on which we should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us guidance is whether it would be the intention specifically to authorise certain techniques, something which has never been done in the past. I must press this point. The directive in 1965 as amended in 1967 did not discuss any techniques of investigation whatever, including the five techniques of which Sir Edmund Compton complains in his report.

Mr. Maudling: The directive of 1965 as amended in 1967 remains the ruling directive. There has been no change. The methods employed in practice were the same in Aden as in Northern Ireland. On the question of whether the directive should go into something positive rather than negative, that is one of the things that should be considered by Lord Parker and his colleagues.
Those are the two main issues brought out by the Compton Report—the arrests, where any charge of brutality has been totally demolished, and the issue of interrogation where big matters still remain to be resolved, and which I hope will

be seriously considered on both sides of the House because they involve issues which in any democracy are very important. Where Sir Edmund has done great service is by disposing of the calumnies that have been put out against the Armed Forces of this country and the R.U.C. It is necessary to take vigorous measures to fight a ruthless enemy, a terrorist and murderous enemy. We must recognise them for what they are. They are criminals who wish to impose their will by violence and by terror, and their methods have been condemned by virtually everyone of any responsibility in the whole of Northern Ireland and in this House. They are opposed, front to front, with the Army and the police who are trying to maintain law and order. Battle is joined. Facts are sacred, even in a time of war, but no one can be impartial as between those who kill to destroy the law and those who die to defend it.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I wish to make only one short point. I hope that my hon. Friends will not think it impertinent of me if I offer them a word of advice. I understand that some of them want to force a Division on this Motion. I hope that they will not. This is not the Front Bench speaking, this is not the Whips Office. This is a back bencher, as obscure as any but whose name is not unknown in Ireland, and whose motives are, I hope, not in question.
I could give several reasons for offering this advice, but I will mention only one because I think it may appeal more than others. There has been very efficient Whipping on the other side of the House; there has been none on this side. Some of our friends are unavoidably absent, and so the majority on the other side of the House would be very large. This would give the impression in Northern Ireland that most of us do not care, but most of us do care.
Some of us have personal reasons for caring desperately, agonisingly. A vote tonight would do no good whatever to the men in Long Kesh, in Holywood and the Crumlin Road or on the prison ship. I understand how my hon. Friends feel. I appreciate their motives. Indeed I share them, but it is not our emotions about which we must be concerned today.


We are concerned about those men who have been in prison for so long without trial.
I ask my hon. Friends not to press this question to a Division. We are shortly to have a full debate on Northern Ireland when I hope we will have a massive vote. We should let this Motion be disposed of "on the nod"—with a contemptuous nod perhaps—but we should let it go without a Division.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: The House will accept from the reaction of the public to this report as well as from the course of our debate so far that the main issue of concern has been what has come to be known as the interrogation in depth, and I will return to this later. It is fair to point out that this aspect is only one area in which charges were made against the conduct of the Army. This point involves only one small and specialist sector of the Army. Where the Army was widely involved was in the arrests on the night of 9th August. Many charges of brutality and cruelty were made arising out of that. I understand, and perhaps my noble Friend will confirm this later, that the Army sought and was anxious for an inquiry to clear its reputation.
The House may feel, as I do, a sense of relief on learning the full extent to which the conduct of the Army in this operation has been exonerated by the report. It was faced in the early hours of the morning of 9th August with an extremely difficult and delicate operation involving the arrest of 342 people. It cannot have been an easy task. The report says that the operation was carried out swiftly and efficiently and, as the Home Secretary has emphasised, with the minimum of force. There were some accidental injuries no doubt, and the report does not conceal this, but of deliberate violence or cruelty there was no evidence.
This conclusion will be welcomed in almost every part of the House. Whatever happens in future, it is certain that in the course of these operations there will continue to be large numbers of our troops in close contact with the civil population. More searching will have to be done, more arrests will take place,

and the activities of the Army in one of the most disagreeable types of operation known to soldiers deserve the support of this House. We can all admire the discipline and rsetraint it has shown and will show.
I come to the operation which has become known as the interrogation in depth. It is misleading in discussing this operation to talk about "the Army" or "the Forces" as though there was any very wide involvement of large numbers of troops in this exercise. This was a specialist operation, conducted by a small number of highly trained men. Whether the interrogators were members of the Army I do not know, and I make no point about that. The operation was carried out within the ambit of the Army but it was a highly important and highly specialised kind of operation.
Those who were responsible for it acted under rules of procedure which were known to and approved by hon. Gentlemen opposite during their term of Government. Again, I make no particular point of that, except to say that, clearly, such rules have to exist, and that it was appropriate, when they were questioned in 1965 and 1967, that they should be studied and, where necessary modified.

Mr. Healey: I should like to get this clearly on the record. The 1965 directive was not concerned with techniques which should be used in interrogations. It was concerned, for the first time ever so far as any British Government were concerned, to establish certain limits beyond which interrogators should not go. It neither permitted nor forbade the five techniques of which Sir Edmund complains in his report.

Mr. Ramsden: I accept that from the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the position. The fact remains that it is summarised in the report before us, and it constituted a set of rules. It does not appear to me, on reading the report, that those responsible for this operation ever went beyond the spirit of the rules. It is a good thing that the account of what happened, given by Sir Edmund Compton, should have been published in full. We now know exactly what happened, and what was done. The report finds that there was no brutality, but it also finds that the methods used did


involve some physical ill-treatment. The question is whether that was justified. On that the report does not comment, and it does not comment because it did not fall within the province of Sir Edmund Compton to give an opinion of that kind. It was not his responsibility to do so.
That is, I think, our responsibility, here in this House, and we should be prepared to face this question and to meet it. We should be prepared to take it off the Army's shoulders now that it has got to this stage, and this is the only point on which I disagree with the short intervention of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), because if there is a vote—I do not know whether there will be one, and I do not mind—we shall at any rate be assuming responsibility, one way or another, in the way in which, in the long run, it is right that the House of Commons should do.
It is pretty clear from the report what it is that these practices do to people, and what it is they are intended to do. They induce extreme fatigue, and a feeling of loneliness and isolation—in psychological jargon, they induce disorientation—and in the end people talk and give information. We all know—and my right hon. Friend emphasised this today—how vital this information is. It is vital to the operations of the security forces. It has to be acquired extremely quickly so that it may be used while it is fresh, and while its value is still live. It saves lives, and it protects society against the consequences of violence.
But, even given all that, and nobody in the House disputes it, the question is: are we prepared to authorise the doing of these things to human beings, however evil we know those human beings to be? We have to make up our minds on that. Yesterday I asked my right hon. Friend whether he could confirm that those who were subjected to these procedures were not now in any way suffering impairment, either in body or in mind, and he replied "Yes, certainly", and he repeated that in his speech this afternoon. For me, this is really the crucial point. If there were evidence that the bodies of captives had suffered damage, or that their minds had been deranged, or that their personalities had been permanently destroyed, that would be something which I should find it diffi-

cult to condone in any circumstances. But there is no evidence whatever that that has happened.
There is, however, evidence—and evidence in abundance—of the consequences of the activities of these men and their fellows in the form of the toll of mounting casualties, both civilian and military, a toll which would be higher if what they were induced to reveal had not become known to the security forces. I agree with my right hon. Friend and others who have said that this is a very difficult equation which the House has to resolve; namely, the limits to which methods of this kind ought to go. I do not think that it is an equation which can be solved wholly on moral grounds, or by any other than practical men who are prepared to assume responsibility for their decisions.
I believe that the maintenance of public safety requires the upholding of the principles on which these interrogations were conducted. I believe that they may be necessary—modified or not by what the Privy Councillors have to say—as an indispensable adjunct of our security operations in the future.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments if I begin by making two points very clear about my attitude to the Ireland situation and the Army's rôle in it.
The first is almost a declaration of emotional interest. Under the direction of the then Home Secretary, I was responsible for sending troops to the aid of the civil power in Belfast and Derry. From both sides of the House I have defended that decision as essential to preserve property and, more important, to preserve life in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that that decision was right, and continues to be right.
Equally, I have said from both sides of the House that it was my belief that the Army would conduct itself in such a way that the House would be proud of the attitude and performance of the overwhelming majority of the soldiers in Northern Ireland, and I am proud to repeat today. I am sure that is the case and the essential truth of the Army's rôle in Northern Ireland.
My second point is, in a sense, contrary to that. There is developing an unfortunate tendency on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to respond to any criticism of the Government's policy in Northern Ireland with the suggestion that critics of it are the Army's enemies and friends of the gunmen. I insist that there is no one in the House who is more anxious than I am to see the suppression of terrorism in Northern Ireland. But I have to say, in criticism of the Government's policy—accepting, as I suspect the Government would that the Compton Report is not about the gunmen—that gunmen are not being suppressed as adequately as would be the case were the Government to fulfil their obligations more rationally.
Having said that, I turn to what the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence said on television yesterday about the Compton Report. He said that it was a general vindication of the Army. Of course it is. Nobody is surprised at that, least of all anyone who knows the Army. Nobody, not even the wildest and most intemperate critics, would suppose for a moment that any report on the Army's conduct in Northern Ireland would suggest that its general performance had been remotely deplorable. That is not what the report is about. It is not about the Army's general conduct but about a number of specific issues, and, frankly, the Home Secretary did not begin to deal with any of those specific issues.
I do not believe that we do the cause of peace in Northern Ireland or, for that matter, the cause of the Army's honour and good name, any good by pretending that the report does not bring to our attention a number of specific issues which are a legitimate cause for disquiet. I do not propose to labour the point this afternoon, or to weary the House by listing them. I propose only to give three examples of what I mean.
The first concerns the rescinding of the instruction of the Girdwood Barracks that every internee should be subject to medical examination on his arrival. That does not seem to me to be consistent with the best traditions of the British Army and is a matter for regret. That appears in paragraph 339 of the report.
The second is what has come to be called the helicopter incident, which appears in paragraph 119 of the report.
The third—I choose only one of the many examples of personal complaints, the case of Mr. Edward Eamon Campbell—is the most squalid and most pathetic of all the personal cases outlined in the report. What happened to Mr. Campbell does not seem to me to be something which we as general supporters of the integrity and honour of the Army can pretend did not exist and should not be subject to further examination.
I believe that it is deeply in the Army's own interests that in these specific instances more inquiries should be made and that the matter should be pursued a good deal further—perhaps pursued privately, perhaps pursued according to the regulations and rules that the Army has for governing these matters. I hope therefore—again, I stress, in the interests of the Army's own good name—that when the Minister of State replies he will say that these matters which are certainly subject to criticism in the report and those matters which are subject, quite properly, to concern in the House, will be inquired iuto further by the Army and that the Army will decide what it is best to do in the light of Compton's findings.
I say that it is in the interests of the Army itself and in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland for two reasons. First, when troops went into Belfast and Derry in the summer of 1969 the then Home Secretary and all those associated with the policy believed that they were going—

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman for more than a moment. He has referred to the case of Mr. Edward Eamon Campbell. The conclusions are these, in paragraph 208 of the report:
We are clear that Mr. Campbell suffered no ill-treatment, still less brutality. He was not shaved to punish or degrade him. On the contrary, the treatment was given him for his benefit and in accordance with the prescription professionally given at the time by not one but two medical officers for a condition which they independently diagnosed.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State asked me to pursue the point. I do so with reluctance, but if he asks me I must. The report says that a corporal


of the Royal Corps of Military Police shaved this man at the moment of his detention for medical reasons. That is a conclusion which will be greeted with some scepticism by people who have served in and know the Army. I should not have made that point had not the Minister of State asked me to pursue it. However, I confirm that that is my judgment and I believe that most people with military experience will be sceptical of the conclusion.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman can be sceptical of the conclusion. The report of the Compton Committee was not sceptical. It made the position quite clear.

Mr. Hattersley: Then the Minister of State must make his stand one way or the other. I hope that as a corollary of his statement that he does not intend to pursue those matters about which Compton was not sceptical, he will say that he intends to pursue those matters about which the Compton Committee was specifically critical. What the Minister of State certainly cannot do is to say in the House that there is no cause for concern in the House because Compton says that it was all right and then say, as I fear that he will, that, even when Compton says that something is not all right, he will not pursue the matter. The Minister of State must make up his mind one way or the other.
Having dealt with that specific issue, I want to pursue the central issue of what the Compton Report reveals. This relates to the relationship between the Army and the civil population in Northern Ireland. Those of us who were concerned with the Army's presence in Northern Ireland originally in 1969 believed that the Army was going there basically—perhaps the description is grandiloquent, but we believed it—to help preserve the civilised values in Northern Ireland.
It is not possible to preserve the civilised values unless the preservers of those values are themselves free from criticism. It is essential that the Army is demonstrably on the side of law and order. Where there are issues which still have to be determined, where there are questions which still have to be answered, I do not believe that the Army can achieve the right relationship with the civil population, unless it is made

clear that those areas of its conduct which are the subject of criticism by the Compton Report are to be investigated by the Army in its own way and that the Army's own procedures of discipline, should they prove to be appropriate, are to be followed.
The second reason why I think that the Army must pursue these matters further than they have been pursued up to now is that, if the Army is to succeed in its suppression of terrorism, it must secure once more the confidence of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members opposite will say that the confidence is still there and that it is only people like me who erode that confidence by repeating the complaints which come from Northern Ireland. I believe that that attitude is essentially one of hiding one's head in the sand. There is no doubt that the Army's esteem amongst the minority population in Northern Ireland is not what it was two years ago. Indeed, it is not what it was one year ago.

Mr. Orme: Not since internment.

Mr. Hattersley: I personally deplore that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that the crucial change in the attitude of the civilian population towards the Army occurred at the time of internment. That tragic decision—wrong in principle and wrong in practice—is perhaps too late to reverse.
However, it is not too late for the Government to make it clear that they are anxious to establish in the Catholic ghettos of Derry and Belfast that the Army is still basically on the side of the majority of the Catholic population who are on the side of law and order. To do that, I believe that the Army must be rigorous in its pursuit of those who according to the Compton Report are subject to criticism.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Surely the point is that the Army is in full support of all the people—of all the Catholics who are in support of law and order as well as of the Protestants? It is only those who are deliberately against law and order that the Army is there to control. The hon. Gentleman himself was responsible for sending people there to carry out those duties.

Mr. Hattersley: Let me try to explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what I am seeking to say. It is possible—indeed, on a previous occasion in the House I felt it my duty to say so—that the Army is now behaving in a way which is more directed by Stormont than it was on previous occasions. I personally deplore that. Whether the control is that of Stormont or that of Westminster and whether the Army's control is politically biased is not essential to my point. My point is not one of debate but of fact. It is that a growing number of Catholics are losing the faith they once had in the Army's objectivity. Whether that loss of faith is justified is hardly the question. The question is that the faith must be restored. My contention is that it will not be restored if incidents like those reported in the Compton Report are left to go unchallenged or are swept under the carpet.
I believe that there is another essential question to be answered if the Compton Report is not to cause an enormous degree of disquiet in the Catholic ghettos of Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence has made very clear what I, and I suspect he, have checked to be the status of the criteria concerning interrogation, to which the Compton Report refers. Those are the limits to which interrogation—this is as regarded by this Government and their predecessors—should go. These are parameters.
The question therefore arises: who actually took the decision that this form of interrogation was appropriate in these cases? For, after all, this interrogation was carried out on men who had not been charged in any court of law. Indeed, it was carried out on a number of men who within half-a-dozen days were released because there was no evidence against them. We are entitled to ask whether Ministers at Westminster knew that it was happening, whether they knew the details of what was happening, and whether they gave their specific approval to what was happening.

Lord Balniel: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. I find his argument very hard indeed to understand. The methods of interrogation have been used for many years. They were

used specifically at the time of Aden and they were used in Malaysia and in Borneo. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that in his belief the Minister at the time did not know the methods which were being used by their Department? I find this very hard to accept.

Mr. Hattersley: It is clear that the Minister of State has not followed me. I will put it in more simple language. The rules concerning interrogation do not say that all detainees held by the Army should be interrogated in this way. They say that this is the limit to which interrogation should go. What I want to know is whether the Army went to that limit without Ministerial approval or whether the Army went to that limit with the approval of, or indeed on the express instruction of, Ministers.
I go a great deal further. Were I holding the job which I once held and which the noble Lord now holds, I could not possibly have approved of that sort of interrogation in circumstances such as these. I repeat that all these men were not subject to any charge at law and many of them were subsequently proved to be innocent and were released.
I want the Minister of State to tell me whether it was his decision or whether it was taken in default of his knowledge.

Lord Balniel: I can tell the hon. Gentleman—exactly the same Ministerial concurrence as was given to the same methods of interrogation used in Aden, Malaysia and Borneo.

Mr. Hattersley: I can only reply that I greatly doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends or I will regard that as an adequate answer to my question if the noble Lord has no more to say when he replies. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have a deepening suspicion that these crucial decisions in Northern Ireland, crucial in terms of civil liberties and crucial in terms of the preservation of peace, for which we all strive, are increasingly being taken in Belfast rather than in London, and that the decisions about this sort of interrogation were taken not by the Home Secretary here or by the Secretary of State for Defence but by the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, Mr. Faulkner. For my part, I can only regard it as totally unacceptable that the British Army should


be operating in this way on his instructions and according to his criteria.
Now, two points about the nature and quality of the report. It has been described by a number of biased and prejudiced people as "a whitewash job". I do not regard it as a whitewash job. In my view, the report is a remarkable document. It is a tribute to the integrity and dedication of Sir Edmund Compton; but, because of that integrity and dedication, the report has many inadequacies, inadequacies which, were it a whitewash job, would not have been revealed.
Some of those inadequacies are the direct result of the internees' refusal to participate in the inquiry, a refusal which I, like my hon. Friends, very much regret. I wish that they had given evidence. But the issue is not whether the blame for the inadequacies of the inquiry should be put at their door or the door of others. The issue is that the inquiry leaves many questions open, and we should be wrong were we not to repeat those open questions here today.
For example, paragraph 181 concludes:
We are unable to resolve the conflict
—that is, the conflict of evidence. In paragraph 190, again, the Compton Committee says that it is unable to make a finding. In paragraph after paragraph, there are questions left open in this way which are bound to cause disquiet unless the matter is pursued.
There is a second inadequacy in the report about which the Minister of State should comment. I regard the definition of brutality as opposed to physical ill treatment as, frankly, nonsensical. It is nonsensical because the report's definition of brutality is almost entirely concerned with the intentions in the mind of the people who were carrying out the interrogation, and intention is not something which is susceptible to the normal rules of evidence. What they actually did, on the other hand, is.
I feel, therefore, that many of the conclusions in the report fall because of the peculiar semantic division according not to what the men did but to the feelings which they held when doing it. In many ways, this is a matter of great regret. It must be a matter of supreme concern to all who believe that the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland can be

won only if we stand up for democracy and the rule of law and liberty, and only if we ourselves fearlessly and constantly espouse the cause of democracy, the rule of law and liberty.
Those of us who believe, as the noble Lord does, I know—I am sure that he will reiterate it when he replies—in the absolute obligation on all of us to do nothing which can encourage the gunman or depress the Army have an obligation to say today that we want the Army's good name to be cleared. I want the overwhelmingly honourable position of the Army to be established, and I want those one or two occasions when the Compton Report recognises that there was a fall from grace to be pursued. I want that done not because we want the Army to suffer but because we want the Army to prosper in the pursuit of peace and liberty in Northern Ireland.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate because—if for no other reason—I have a garrison in the constituency which I am privileged to represent, and many of those who have served or are serving in Ulster have Colchester as their more permanent place of posting.
On three occasions since the latest troubles came upon Ulster, I have visited the Province, and after each visit my admiration for the courage, fortitude and forbearance of our men has been made the more profound. I do not believe that any other Army in the world would have shown the discipline and self-restraint which our men have displayed.
My reading of the report, as deep and detailed as time has so far permitted, in no way diminishes the great admiration which I have for our forces and for the R.U.C. as well. Indeed, a reading of the report enhances the high regard which I have for the work they have done and are doing.
The very fact that the inquiry was set up demonstrates the sort of Army we have, that is, an Army which prides itself on its good name and its reputation for humanity as much as it prides itself on its reputation for courage.
Allegations of brutality are all too easy to make, and it is often difficult for them to be refuted. That they have been refuted will come as no surprise to those


who know our soldiers. No other Army in the world, at a time when allegations of brutality were made in the course of a bitter struggle against its adversaries—brutal and unscrupulous adversaries let it be said—would have asked that there should be an investigation of such allegations by independent civilians. It is a high tribute to the Army that it requested that the investigation be made.
The allegations have been investigated, and the Army's good name has been totally vindicated. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that there is any substantial residual complaint standing against the Army. I am surprised that he calls in aid a complaint concerning a Mr. Campbell. The conclusion of the relevant paragraph, as my noble Friend the Minister of State pointed out, firmly arrived at, is:
We are clear that Mr. Campbell suffered no ill-treament, still less brutality. He was not shaved to punish or degrade him. On the contrary, the treatment was given him for his benefit and in accordance with the prescription professionally given at the time by not one but two medical officers for a condition which they independently diagnosed.
Faced with a finding like that, how can the hon. Gentleman, a former Service Minister, say that there is something further which should be investigated? I do not understand it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear. Shameful.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is enjoying some support from his hon. Friends. If it is thought that it is shameful—that was one of the words used—that I should disagree with one of the conclusions in the report which exonerated the treatment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that those parts of the report which are specifically critical of the Army's conduct should equally be subject to no criticism?

Mr. Buck: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say what he wishes in the House, but he must live with his conscience, and I wonder whether his contributions here will help the morale of our Armed Forces. He has chosen to take issue with the Compton Report on one of the matters on which it came to a clear conclusion accepting the opinion which not one but two doctors had given. I can only express

surprise—I am putting it mildly, I hope—that the hon. Gentleman, a former Service Minister, should have chosen some such paragraph in order, it seems to me, to raise a case against the Army's conduct. I am surprised, and a little disappointed.
What the hon. Gentleman has said is an indication of what critics of the Army are reduced to. In the context of what we all know is happening in Northern Ireland today, they are reduced to criticism about a man being shaved, or something like that. We were well reminded today by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) of the circumstances on 9th August. The Army was charged with bringing into custody no fewer than 342 men, the large majority of whom I believe to be dedicated terrorists. They seem to pride themselves on their membership of the Irish Republican Army. At Long Kesh, when I went there, they were paraded. Is it suggested that they were paraded by any other than one of the branches of the Irish Republican Army? The men being brought into custody, in my opinion, were—or the vast majority were—brutal men, men trained to kill, and men dedicated to attain their own political ends by assassination and the wanton destruction of property. We were reminded today of the casualty list, of those who are in hospital because of their brutality.
I regard it as nothing short of fantastic that so many men of that calibre should have been brought in without one of them being significantly ill-treated We are considering black eyes and things like that. It is fantastic that under those circumstances there was so little—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. Gentleman and I visited Long Kesh internment camp. Is he trying to tell the House that every single human being there was, as he described, an I.R.A. terrorist? Is he also trying to say that none of the physical ill-treatment found by the Compton Committee was visited upon people who were not in fact in the I.R.A.?

Mr. Buck: I was very careful in what I said, as all hon. Members should be when they address the House. I spoke of "the large majority". My belief is that the vast majority of those who are


in Long Kesh and whom the hon. Gentleman and I saw are I.R.A. dedicated killers.

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Buck: I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady in the hope that she will take the opportunity to condemn the brutality and dastardly conduct of the I.R.A.

Miss Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I believe that a person should be judged on his own standards. It ill befits the hon. Gentleman to slander people against whom no charges have been brought, people held in a camp whom the hon. Gentleman has called dedicated killers. He does not know that of people against whom no charges have been brought.

Mr. Buck: Is the hon. Lady against brutality?

Miss Devlin: I am not against the official I.R.A., its objectives or activities. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not talking about the dedicated killing or organised brutalities carried out by people in the British Army, and I am not talking about people going to excesses but the brutalities carried out by order of people on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Buck: I will express quietly my great disappointment that the hon. Lady should not have condemned the activities of the I.R.A. but should have confirmed on the Floor of the House her support for one of the branches of that organisation. I will not rub it in, but I find it bitterly disappointing, though perhaps not surprising.
I stated quite clearly my views about the men who are interned. It is true that I cannot prove them, because those who would otherwise give evidence are terrified to do so because of the pressures put upon them by the organisations which the hon. Lady has now expressed herself as supporting. That is why it is not possible to prove them in a court of law, and the hon. Lady knows that very well.

Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Gentleman and I together discussed these matters with some of the internees in Long Kesh. Is he seriously suggesting that any of the internees we saw were terrified of their fellow internees?

Mr. Buck: I am talking not about the internees in Long Kesh but about the people who might give evidence against them. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, knows full well the difficulty of bringing cases against them. It is the difficulty of getting people to give evidence, because of their fear that if they do give evidence against the men in Long Kesh, the ones who are the most brutal there, they will be killed or maimed. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that proposition. I do not think that many of the internees were terrorised, because I think that they were birds of a feather, in the main working in co-ordination. What other explanation can there be for what the hon. Gentleman and I saw, namely, a substantial number of internees in Long Kesh parading and each carrying a letter spelling out "British concentration camp" or some such under the discipline of people who were behaving like N.C.O.s? We know very well that they are members of the I.R.A., and some of them appear to be proud of it, just as the hon. Lady seems to be proud of her support of one wing of that organisation, though it comes as a shock to hear that expressed in this House.
The second part of the Compton Report deals with matters relating to the system of interrogation in depth. This applies only to a very small number of those who were brought into custody on the occasion concerned.
It is right that there should have been an investigation of this type, but it would have been better if the report had been not to the House or the public but, say, to an all-party Committee of Privy Councillors, because now the methods of interrogation used by the British Forces have been fully displayed. I cannot think that that is a very healthy thing. It creates difficulties for those who are fighting the brutal people in Northern Ireland today. I have no doubt that if the report had been to a Committee of Privy Councillors from both sides there would have been, similarly, the establishment of the Parker Commission to give further guidance in the very difficult matter of where the line should be drawn between proper, robust interrogation and ill-treatment. It is right that our Forces should be given additional assistance on that matter.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that all the techniques of interrogation mentioned in the Compton Report have been used over a number of years not merely in emergencies such as Malaysia, Aden and so on but in training exercises by British military interrogators on British troops?

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. It seems to me that the point is that there is no evidence that they were harmed.
I commend the way in which the Press and news media as a whole have reported on the report, but there have been some exceptions. I should like to record my disappointment that at the start of the "24 Hours" programme in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and I took part last night there was shown a televised film of interviews with men who, it appeared to me, as we watched on a monitor screen in the studio, where in some cases making allegations of the type which had been found by Compton to have no foundation. That was another disappointment to me, but not a particular surprise.
We want fair reporting of matters in Northern Ireland, but if there is to be partiality it should show a preference for those who are supporting law and order rather than those carrying on this disreputable war of terrorism and bloodshed. All that we can do now is to show our pride in and satisfaction at the conduct of those who are bearing the brunt of the situation in Northern Ireland, people from all communities and all classes of the community, of all political persuasions and all religions. We should express our satisfaction at the fortitude being shown by so many of them, and ask now that Lord Parker and the two people who will work with him should deal expeditiously with the difficult matters referred to them, so that the Forces can have clear guidance as to their future conduct of the matters in question.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: I have promised to be brief and I intend to keep my word.
I must at the outset comment on some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) who cast doubts on an organisation known as the Association for Legal Justice. He

asked the Home Secretary to give information about this body.
I can tell him that the highly respected members of this organisation include, from Dungannon, Father Faul, who has done the useful job of collecting much of the material that has appeared in the Sunday Times and other publications. He is only one of the main people concerned with this organisation.
The hon. Member for Londonderry called in aid the fact that the methods of interrogation being used in Northern Ireland were similar to those practised by the Army in Malaysia, Aden and elsewhere. He did not—nor did any hon. Gentleman opposite—mention the rôle of the Army in Cyprus, where 34 cases of brutality out of 37 were proved at Strasbourg.
The Home Secretary has already annoyed good Unionists in Londonderry by referring to his hon. Friend as the representative of "Derry" when he should have used the word "Londonderry". He has said that the reason why the inquiry was not held in public was the fear of witnesses being intimidated. The same excuse has been used about internment.
If that is the reason, may we be told why at this time in practically every court in Northern Ireland people who are supposed to be members of the I.R.A. are being prosecuted on arms charges? What will happen to the witnesses in those cases? To my knowledge no witness in any of those cases has been shot. I trust that I have demolished once and for all the nonsense that is talked about witnesses being intimidated.
There was a former Home Secretary who became notorious in respect of Ireland. His name was Hamar Greenwood, and he gave his name to a description of something; I need not go into that. The present Home Secretary is in danger of lending another name to the English language by his continuous defence of the British Army. He is trying to persuade this House that we are not dealing with an Army trained to fight and kill but with a bunch of angels sent from heaven.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Srarkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described as biased and misguided those who call the Compton Corn-mission a whitewashing operation. I


regard it as a whitewashing operation from start to finish, and I can prove it.
Brian Faulkner conned, or persuaded by some means or other, the British Government into perpetrating the awful crime of internment against the minority in Northern Ireland. There was an outcry throughout the world and England was disgraced in world opinion—[Interruption.]—but the Government were not worried. "The forces of tyranny will win through. We will send one Minister to America and one somewhere else, and some more elsewhere if necessary to explain British policy. The faithful will rally if we make enough misleading statements often enough". [Interruption.] As Goebbels once said, "If you tell a lie often enough, the British public will be convinced."
But stories of brutality began to filter through and there was an even greater outcry. The British Government realised that they were in a serious position over world opinion. They had to do something. It was difficult for them to admit everything, but something had to be done. Then somebody in the Government had a bright idea. I do not accuse the Home Secretary because I do not think he has had one for a long time. Nor do I accuse the Prime Minister because it is commonly held that he has never had such a thing. Nevertheless, a Minister somewhere had the bright idea of holding an inquiry.
The idea came out in this way: "Let us get a civil servant with a reputation for fairness and instruct him to bring in a report which will be favourable to the Government." [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that that is an exaggeration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and for once they agree with me about something, but let us examine exactly what happened. The Compton Commission was set up, but it broke all the rules laid down by the Royal Commission headed by Lord Justice Salmon. For example, it was held in private, it was not given authority to summon witnesses and internees were not given legal aid or advice.
The Government leaned heavily on the reputation of Sir Edmund Compton. One is bound to say, therefore, that his reputation must arise in our consideration of this matter. He should not have been put

in this position, but he was, and his reputation thereby arises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] The Government have forced people to reflect on his reputation, so let us do that.
The first thing to be remembered is that Sir Edmund Compton is a paid civil servant, so that his first loyalty is to his employer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgusting."] That is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Sir Edmund rightly gained an enormous reputation as an ombudsman. Everybody grants him that. But this was not just another job for an ombudsman. This was an entirely different business. His reports and deliberations were likely to have serious repercussions for Britain's good name in the world and in Anglo-Irish relations. He was a civil servant given responsibility for a major political development which might have serious lasting effects on Anglo-Irish relations.
Although his hands were tied, although he talked to only one internee, although he had no power to summon witnesses—and as a result had to depend entirely on what witnesses the police and Army decided to send him—and although there was no confrontation between accuser and accused, his report reveals that all the allegations have been founded on fact. [Interruption.] Of the five groups of accusations, three have been upheld and two have been left open.
Allegations about hooding and starvation, about the helicopter incident and about standing people against the wall for hours on end have been upheld. So have those about the obstacle course, except that instead of broken glass the material used might have been broken stones or something similar. There has been an attempt to explain away what cannot be denied. Semantics have been brought in. The nicer word "ill-treatment" has been substituted for "brutality", but nobody is foooled.
A man who has a hood placed over his head is suffering, no matter whether the man who placed it there did it as a matter of course or enjoyed doing it. A man who is made to stand against a wall for 43½ hours over six or seven days suffers whether or not the man making him do it is enjoying the exercise or does it as a matter of course. The same applies to a man who is terrified in a helicopter or a man who is subjected to


incessant noise. What about the man whose testicles are systematically squeezed? In relation to any or all of these allegations, people suffer whether or not those perpetrating the torture enjoy doing it. It amounts to brutality and, call it what one likes from now till doomsday, it is brutality.
Let us come to the question why the internees did not co-operate and why only one approached Sir Edmund Compton. Would any hon. Member, even on the benches opposite, go to a tribunal in the certain knowledge that one cannot have a solicitor or cross-examine the person who has been ill-treating one?
Would any hon. Gentleman opposite stand before Sir Edmund, make a statement or allegation and then turn and walk back to one's prison ship or internment camp? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think so, but I do not believe that they would be prepared to take part in a game when, for example, the opposition were already in 90 per cent. possession of the field, when one could not challenge any members of the opposing team and when the referee had been appointed without prior consent. Only mad people would take part in such a game, and the internees are not mad. They are intelligent men.
Attempts have been made to justify the methods. Some Government Ministers will go to any lengths to justify them, as the Secretary of State for Defence did last night on television. He said in reply to a question that those who received the special tough treatment, which narrows the number down to a relatively few people, were directly or indirectly responsible for murder. He was accusing a relatively small group of men of murder. That is an outrageous allegation for anybody to make, and the Secretary of State should be removed from office forthwith.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: While the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House on methods of brutality, will he take the opportunity to make his own position absolutely clear? Does he totally reject the methods of murdering innocent women, children and other civilians which have been pursued in Ulster in recent months?

Mr. McManus: In all my public life I have been non-violent, and I advocate non-violence. However, I will say this for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman—it will probably prove to be unpopular, but it needs to be said. For hundreds of years Irishmen have been described in this House as terrorists, but they have been regarded as freedom fighters by the majority of the minority population in Northern Ireland. They are not terrorists in the eyes of the majority of the minority; they are freedom fighters fighting against a brutal invading army. That is the position, whether the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) likes it or not, and I challenge any hon. Member opposite to disprove it.
I apologise for having been side-tracked from discussing the Compton Report, but I wished to answer certain questions. The violence in Northern Ireland flows, as I hope to show, not from the I.R.A. but directly from British Government policy in Northern Ireland over 50 years. It flows from the establishment of an unnatural entity, an unnatural creation in part of Ireland against the wishes of the people of Ireland. That unnatural entity—call it Stormont in Northern Ireland—was born out of force. It has been maintained by force. It has been maintained by every conceivable form of oppression, intimidation and discrimination.
Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite still throw their hands piously to Heaven and wonder why there is violence in Northern Ireland? The miracle is that, after 50 years of domination, suppression and intimidation, there is not much more terror in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook said, the British Army came to Northern Ireland two years ago. It was accepted initially as a peacemaker, but as everybody in Northern Ireland well knows it is not fulfilling a peacekeeping rôle. It is being used as the instrument of the Stormont Government and consequently it has lost the faith of the entire community.

Mr. James Kilfedder: rose—

Mr. McManus: I have given way several times.
I was speaking about the Secretary of State for Defence when I was interrupted.


This man has made allegations of murder against men who cannot even raise a voice in their defence. They cannot even say, "I am not guilty of that allegation", because they are held in a cage without trial. There is a legal riposte and we intend to pursue it.
If the Government wish to retain any semblance of honour in the eyes of Irishmen and of the world, they will continue where the Compton Inquiry so inadequately left off. They will establish a proper inquiry manned by people of international repute who are bound to be impartial which will not only investigate the selected area which Sir Edmund Compton was forced to inquire into but inquire into all the allegations of physical and mental brutality and torture made since internment was introduced. If the Government do not do this, Amnesty International will probably do it. The Dublin Government will shortly wake from their lethargy and bring a case at Strasbourg.
Either or both of those inquiries will undoubtedly prove serious charges of brutality against the British Army. When that happens, the Government will look about for scapegoats, as the Americans did in the My Lai case. But it is not right and fair that ordinary soldiers, no matter how brutal they may have been, should be made responsible for the greater sins of those who gave them their orders. The Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State are the people with ultimate responsibility, and they should bear the brunt of that responsibility.
If the British Government have the honour and courage to set up an inquiry, that inquiry should also inquire into the fact that since July, 1970, 27 civilians have been shot by the British Army. A great many people in Northern Ireland—the majority of the minority—believe that these people were innocent.

Mr. John Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. McManus: I cannot give way. I did not intend to speak so long.
If right hon. and hon. Members say that those people were not innocent and that they were armed, I refer them to yesterday's findings at Strabane at an inquest on the deaf mute, Davitt. The

inquest held that the Army believed that he was armed but that the young man was unarmed and was shot down. That is one reason why the minority in Northern Ireland have lost confidence completely. The one-time confidence has been replaced by a bitter hatred, because, among other things, since July, 1970, which is when the British Government took office, 27 civilians have been shot by the British Army and no inquiry, outside the usual official inquiry, has been held.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McManus: No. I propose to finish now by commenting on another tribunal which is sitting at this moment, the Brown Tribunal, which, like the Compton Inquiry, is inquiring into the question of the internees and their conditions. I will shortly be in a position to give the Home Secretary evidence of the fact that at least 20 men have signed statements to the effect that Mr. Justice Brown asked them questions about everything under the sun except their political affiliations and notions and then sent them back, saying, "We have to keep you."
That is the sort of face-saving farce that is discrediting the British Government and the British Army and everyone connected with them in Northern Ireland. Inquiries into specific allegations are necessary but they in themselves do not prove or solve anything. An inquiry must be undertaken without delay by the British Government into their whole policy on Northern Ireland.
If that policy is carried out with any degree of intelligence, it must force the Government to three or four brief conclusions: first, that the partition experiment has failed; secondly, that Stormont, after 50 years of intimidation, repression and discrimination, has made the condition of Northern Ireland, not better, but unspeakably worse; thirdly, that the Stormont Government are now discrediting the British Army by using it as their own instrument of repression; and, finally, that, since the present system has failed so miserably, there is no hope in its continuance and that if the Government wish to exonerate the British Army and themselves over Irish affairs they should seriously consider ways and means by


which they can withdraw both their Army and their presence from Ireland so that all Irishmen can live together in peace and prosperity.

5.40 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I hesitate to intervene on the subject of Northern Ireland. I have never spoken on it in this House before. I do so now with great diffidence. Many hon. Members, I suspect, have had a somewhat rushed job in reading the Compton Committee's Report in time for this debate. I have had a very rushed job to read it. In fact, I was unable to read it yesterday because of pressure of work in this House and outside it, and did not get to the report until between 5 and 7 o'clock this morning.
However, I think any of us would wonder, having heard the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), whether the report had ever been made, or at least whether he had read it. The allegations which he has trotted out in his speech make one wonder whether he has even bothered to read the report. He says it is a whitewash exercise. Of course, he has done what some hon. Members are apt from time to time to do in this place—I have done it myself: rush to a false premise and then argue logically forward from that, so that the further one argues the bigger sillinesses one utters.

Mr. McManus: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I cannot give way at the moment. I am going to give way in due course, but I have nothing like finished with the hon. Member yet.
At least in the last words of his speech the hon. Member has expressed the hope that there would be peace in Northern Ireland, but I wonder very much whether, if he studies his own speech later, he will think that his speech contributed much to that end. It was full of inaccuracies. He suggested, I think, that no referee, no legal representation, was allowed to some of these witnesses, but in paragraph 18 of his report Sir Edmund Compton says:
In accordance with the modification in our procedure made by the Home Secretary on the 3rd September, legal representation of the witnesses before us was permitted.

I do not want to go into the minutiæ of this report or of individual cases, but I do bitterly resent—and it is this for which I criticise the hon. Member most—his foul calumnies against Sir Edmund Compton. We who in this House had the privilege of taking up cases with him when he was the Parliamentary Commissioner over here know the immense, dedicated work he did on behalf of our individual constituents when they or we suspected that they were being unfairly treated. To suggest that this man could lend himself to the sort of exercises of which the hon. Member accused him is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. McManus: Before the hon. Member bursts a blood vessel, I think I had better reply to some of his ugly misinterpretations of what I said. He said that I made outrageous accusations against Sir Edmund Compton. I did nothing of the sort. I said the ombudsman gained an enormous reputation, but I said, as the hon. Member would have heard if he had listened, that findings against a particular Ministry are one thing and findings as between countries are a completely different thing. I did not say Sir Edmund Compton's rôle was that of a politician. There were one or two other things the hon. Member said. He praised the last part of my speech when I said I hoped there would be peace in Northern Ireland. I would reply simply to him that if he spent less time praising the Army and more time examining the real issues in Northern Ireland the sooner and the closer we would get to peace.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think that some of us assume from time to time that some Irish memories are rather too long. If I may say so, the hon. Member's memory has been too short about this. If he will look up what he said about Sir Edmund Compton he will see that I was correct in saying that he imputed to Sir Edmund Compton the sorts of things which Sir Edmund Compton was inquiring into and about which the hon. Member complains. It was a monstrous thing for the hon. Member to say. May I leave the hon. Member. I am rather tired of him.
Those of us who have served in the Army as regular soldiers or as wartime ones or as conscript soldiers after the war know that the sorts of things which have been bandied about about British


troops in Northern Ireland simply do not add up in our recollections of the way in which the British Army behaves.
Heaven forbid that there should be censorship over these things. I loathe that word "censorship" more than any other word in the English language. One of the most distasteful tasks I have ever had to engage in was that of reading letters written home by men under my command and censoring them in time of war. It is a most horrible thing to have to do. I am not suggesting for a moment that there should be any form of censorship, but I would address a point to the Press and to editors. I am a rather dangerous person to speak on this subject because my grandfather once horsewhipped an editor who wrote and published a foul libel against my great-grandfather. I will not go into what happened after that. [Laughter.]

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. May I respectfully, Mr. Speaker, point out to this House that the matter which we are discussing depends to a large extent upon, will be determined to a large extent by, the mental climate not only in Northern Ireland, and that we are not the slightest bit interested in the hon. Member's grandfather or great-grandfather?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I did not suspect for one moment that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) would enjoy a speech by me on a subject which she has consistently misrepresented in this House and everywhere else she goes. How she can say she is not against the I.R.A. and take the line she took when she first came into this place is something I do not understand.
However, the only reason I mentioned this business was that I do think there is one thing on which we British people cannot honourably be impartial, and that is the upholding of law and order. One is either for it or one is against it. I should have thought that nobody, whether on the B.B.C. or the I.T.V. or the Press, who is interviewing people who are supporting, or who are actually themselves taking part in, activities which are upsetting law and order, can be neutral.

Mr. Richard Kelley: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I cannot give way again. I know others want to speak.

Mr. Orme: What about the hon. Member's colleagues who want to beat the I.R.A.? Tell us about them.

Mr. Kelley: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am not going to give way again. I am already taking too long.
I do not think it is honourable for British people to be impartial about the upholding of law and order. I am only suggesting to all concerned in these sorts of matters that it really is very important that we do at least recognise some obligations to back up those who are trying to restore and maintain law and order, and it is this consideration which, I hope, particularly will come out of this valuable report by Sir Edmund Compton and his fellow commissioners.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am sorry; I cannot give way again. I have sat through the debate from the beginning and I want to make one or two more observations before sitting down.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), in a speech which commanded the great respect of the House, said that our main concern here is with those who are interned without trial. That was the major concern which he expressed.

Mr. Delargy: May I say that I was addressing myself to certain of my hon. Friends, and I know what is their main concern.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I accept that; I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman for saying it. That is what the report is about. It is a report concerned with the complaints of those who have been interned. We should recognise the limitations of the report. It is dealing with a narrow subject, but, if we are not careful, it can give the impression that the whole of the British Army in Northern Ireland has been involved in this part of the exercise. It has not. Only a select few members of the Armed Forces and the military police were involved in this. This is a job which requires highly trained


people. The ordinary British soldier who is trying to maintain law and order on the streets of Belfast has not been involved in the examination in depth of people who have been arrested. The report deals with a sophisticated form of military service—those who are involved in the examinations. It may not always be soldiers who are doing this. It may be the Special Branch. I do not know, and I do not want to know. It is not our duty to know all aspects of the activities of the Special Branch.
That security and information and intelligence for our troops to act are essential in Northern Ireland I have no doubt. I have some recollection of what happened in Southern Ireland at the end of the First World War, although credit is always given to the Black and Tans for their gallantry. Without the military intelligence service behind the Armed Forces we shall never get on top of the situation in Northern Ireland. Military intelligence is absolutely vital to this exercise. One reason why so many troops are in Ireland today is the absence of intelligence at the beginning. Yet, with more than 12,000 troops in Northern Ireland, there is still only this tiny collection of complaints. When we think of the horrors of the bombing and destruction there, we in the House, and the whole country, should be proud of the men who serve Her Majesty.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am proud of the men who serve Her Majesty, and that is why I revere their good name. I want to see the British Army respected, because I was one of those who urged my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary to send troops into Derry. I said that the Army had a rôle to carry out in separating the warring factions and a job to do in seeing that the principles which we accept in this House are accepted in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday I used the phrase "methods of barbarism" and I was called upon to withdraw it. I did not do so then and I do not do so now.
I shall try to tell the House the principles which apply not only to the situation in Northern Ireland but universally.

They concern the values which we hold dear in Western democracies and the attitude we must adopt towards men, whether they be evil-doers or good men. It is difficult to say that evil men should have the benefit of our standards, but that is what this House is all about. The principles for which we in the House and our predecessors all through the centuries have fought are these: freedom from arbitrary arrest; the right to habeas corpus; the presumed innocence of any man accused of an offence until evidence is produced and that man is convicted; no arbitrary imprisonment; equality before the law; no ill-treatment of prisoners; free debate; liberty of the Press and criticism. All these are in peril.
The first five of those principles, for which this House has fought, have all been flouted in Northern Ireland and are shown to have been by the Compton Report. The sixth, the liberty of the Press and criticism of the standards of reporting, is under severe pressure from hon. Gentlemen opposite. As one who has thought that the leaders in his favourite paper, The Guardian, have not always been favourable to my point of view and have not always drawn the conclusions on Northern Ireland that I would draw, I nevertheless think it would be an evil and wicked thing if The Guardian were to be stopped from printing those views and remedies. I apply this equally to the Protestant Telegraph, the Irish Independent, the B.B.C., I.T.V. and all other media, because we need them.
On my first principle, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, paragraph 33 of the Compton Report states simply and rather horribly what it means to be a member of the minority in the Bogside, the Creggan, the Falls Road or the Ardoyne when a knock comes at one's door and one hears:
I am arresting you under the powers conferred by the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922.
That is a lot of information, and one may think, "What have I done?", to which the reply is, "We do not know what you have done, we are arresting you under the powers conferred by the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922." That is arbitrary arrest.
If a person questions the arrest, he is told:
I am not required to give any further explanation. I warn you that if you resist arrest you may have committed an offence.
From that it appears that a person may have or may not have committed an offence if he resists arrest.
In Chapter VIII the Committee reach its conclusions, conclusions based on hearsay evidence, and damning conclusions they are:
We consider that the following actions constitute physical ill-treatment; posture on the wall, hooding, noise, deprivation of sleep, diet of bread and water.
On the helicopter incident, the conclusion is:
We criticise the action taken to force the complainants to take part in this deception operation and consider that the physical experience of these men constitutes a measure of ill-treatment.
On the "obstacle course", the Committee states:
We conclude that the men concerned may have suffered some measure of unintended hardship.
They suffered hardship, unintended or otherwise. On the late releases from Girdwood there is a conflict of evidence.
This is damning, and the people who are being damned are not the security forces, those few people involved in these incidents, but the Government of the day, because these things are done on the instructions of the Government of the day. The Treasury Bench, and in particular the Home Secretary, have failed to keep abreast of affairs in Northern Ireland, and have allowed the situation so to drift that every important principle of which I spoke has been violated.
We have a brutal situation, and there is a real danger that the whole of our society, not only in Northern Ireland but in the country as a whole, will be brutalised by events taking place over there. Our liberty, our quality of life and the values we hold dear will all suffer as a result of the Government's policy. The inheritance that the right hon. Gentleman is leaving in Northern Ireland and the stupidities of his policy are alienating 40 per cent. of the population and making almost impossible a political solution.
This is the legacy of methods of barbarism, of internment, of the search

in the Falls Road. It is why the Army is seen by the minority to be used as an instrument of repression by the Stormont Government and by a Home Secretary who has failed to keep abreast of the situation.
I should like from the noble Lord in his reply a number of assurances. First, that at last we shall properly grasp the nettle so that the Government accept responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, and so that in controlling this situation there will not be this division between Stormont and Westminster, and between the R.U.C. and the Army.
Secondly, we want from the noble Lord a statement that machinery should be set up to examine every allegation. These complaints did not just stop on 9th August. They are being continuously made and should be fully and properly investigated. This must be done for the good name of our troops and will go some way to restoring the confidence among the minority.
Thirdly, we should try to get away from a situation in which it is said, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, that all these internees are murderers. They may be and, if they are, they deserve to be interned. But we have to see the evidence on which such allegations are being made. This is the key to the situation and one will not get a political solution until one can be shown to be acting in an impartial way.
I do not always agree with what I read in The Times, but I felt that today's leading article contained a good deal of sound advice about which the Government should think carefully. It said:
Yet an open and humane society cannot sanction the physical ill-treatment of people deprived by constituted authority of freedom and power to resist. If it does it divides itself, risks loss of self-respect, exposes itself to censure of outside opinion, and, in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, makes less attainable the indispensable achievement of ultimate reconciliation of the minority community.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry, but I gave an undertaking to Mr. Speaker that I should be only 10 minutes. I have about 30 seconds in which to conclude on this point. The ultimate reconciliation


of the minority community mentioned by The Times should be the aim of this House and the present Government. It is something which internment, the Compton Report and the allegations it substantiates, and the conduct of the Home Secretary, are failing to bring about.

6.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: I respect the views of many of the preceding speakers, although I find it difficult to understand some of them. The Compton Report can only be viewed in the distasteful context of terrorism used as a political weapon. That is what the I.R.A. is doing today in Ireland. There is involved a moral dilemma which I personally have never fully resolved, having had some 25 years' experience of counter-terrorism and having taken part in many of the types of incident described in this excellent report. Therefore, I make no apology to the House for saying something which may be considered to be slightly off the normal political line.
I appreciate the disquiet of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have led sheltered lives of mainly verbal ferocity, but having read this report I am satisfied that it confirms the great restraint and high standard of discipline of the British Army, to which I was proud to belong.
The operation of bringing in internees and detainees has been professionally very well handled. It had to be handled in a reasonably tough manner because dealing with the I.R.A. is not like dealing with boy scouts. The situation has been handled with great fairness and without, so far as I can see, the brutality some people inferred.
The arresting of detainees is a difficult but not impossible task. When I arrested the late Moshe Shertok of the Jewish agency, who was the Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs for the on-coming Israeli Government, I apologised to him for the circumstances of his arrest. He was extremely polite to me and we corresponded for years afterwards. But the fact remains that I was torn apart by the Palestine Post, the local Press. I was hauled before my commanding officer three times and had to make a

written statement on what I had done that was almost as long as the Compton Report.
The Ulster situation is a test of will as much as a trial of strength. When I visited the detainees and internees in early October, I heard first hand similar accounts to those we have heard reported today. The only difference was that there were banners suggesting that I should go home and should not visit the detainees. I asked various of the detainees "Did anyone ask you whether you belonged to the I.R.A.?" That seemed to be the intelligent question to ask a man who was being interrogated. But none would reply. They said, "It is none of your business" and refused to answer me. I drew from that a conclusion, as will many other hon. Members of the House. I concluded at the end of our visit that there was an inevitable escalation from this internment which was bound to create an unsavoury spin-off which the I.R.A. would exploit. This, in my view, is what is happening tonight.
The real question for the House in this debate is whether we uphold the morale of the forces of order or induce the "climate of collapse" which is the aim of urban terrorist activity. The strategy of the I.R.A. is well documented and hon. Members may have read the mini-manual on the urban guerilla. It is a scenario for civil war. It can succeed only if the political crisis engendered by the terrorists cripples our own Government or if the loyalty of the security forces is in doubt. In the latter case this cannot arise because we have the best, most loyal and humane Army in the world for handling internal security problems. The former could arise unless we express a firm vote of confidence in the methods and conduct of these reported-upon operations.
I will not deny the corrupting effects of violence. I believe we are fortunate to have a humane Army and that the suspects are fortunate to be alive in some cases. If one has seen the conditions in which many prisoners or suspects have been arrested and detained in other countries, as I have, one will know that in many cases these Irishmen are lucky to be alive, and are only alive because they are in the hands of the British Army. There is no cant or humbug or emotional insincerity in this House which weakens


my 100 per cent. support of our soldiers who have been reported on in this document.
There is one point that is not to be lost sight of in the instruction in the mini-manual of the urban guerrilla about imprisonment. The instruction is as follows:
The imprisoned urban guerrilla views jail as a terrain he must dominate and understand. There is no prison that is impregnable to the slyness, the cleverness and the potential of the revolutionaries.
There it is, in one. Tactically, we are taking part now in this facet of urban guerrilla warfare. We are acting out the parts, in the same way as people acted out their parts in the helicopter incident, which the Compton Report criticised. What are we doing now but acting out the parts of parliamentarians who, perhaps unwittingly, are supporting the terrorists?
I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept that I am not trying to be deliberately objectionable. I speak from personal experience in Palestine, Cyprus, East Africa, including Kenya, Borneo, Malaysia and Aden.

Mr. Hafer: And what happened there?

An Hon. Member: Hon. Members opposite stabbed my hon. and gallant Friend in the back.

Hon. Members: No.

Lieut-Colonel Mitchell: It is immaterial to me who was responsible for stabbing me in the back in Aden. It is this report which matters tonight, and, if anyone reads it without being convinced that the operation was carried out professionally and with the minimum of violence, what is the point of trying to explain anything?

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not learned his lesson yet.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Member opposite who pointed out earlier that interrogations must be carried out by experts. One cannot have every loose Jock interrogating prisoners, and this has not happened. The implication that interrogations have been carried out by the Army at large must be corrected. They have been carried out by the Special Branch, whose officers are properly trained in interrogation methods.
One must have interrogation methods, because without them it is impossible to obtain information. Without information, one cannot conduct operations and protect lives and property. When the interrogation techniques drawn up in 1965 or 1967 are examined by the Privy Councillors' Committee, let us hope that that will be done not necessarily from the standpoint of taking them away but from that of increasing them, if necessary, possibly by more subtle methods, and certainly bearing in mind the fact that interrogation is a necessary part of the conduct of internal security operations.
What are the alternatives? What are the options open if the forces of law and order are not provided with some way of obtaining information? The alternatives are that they take the law into their own hands, which has happened many times in the past, or that they cease to take quite as many prisoners as they did on this occasion. That is a terrible thing to have to say. It is part of the campaign to break down the feeling of responsibility and discipline in the Army.
The mini-manual of the urban guerrilla discusses the war of nerves. It says:
The object of the war of nerves is to misinform, spreading lies among the authorities, in which everyone can participate, thus creating an air of nervousness, discredit, insecurity, uncertainty, and concern on the part of the government.
I have that pamphlet in my possession. I shall put it in the Library.
The Compton Report contributes nothing to solving the Ulster situation, except by highlighting the vulnerability of a free society to terrorist methods. I believe that the British Army can rest assured that it has been seen to do its duty and that it is fully supported by those who have an understanding of the nature of insurgency.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The issue before us in this debate is not, as the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) has said, what the Armed Forces should do or not do. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the conduct of affairs by all the security forces in Northern Ireland today, and by that I mean the Army, the R.U.C. and the police.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) is not in his place at the moment, although he has been present throughout most of the debate. It is a matter of great regret that he made a false allegation involving the Government of the Republic of Ireland which must be put right. Martin Bell reported from Dublin on the B.B.C.'s television news last night that, in view of the Compton Report, the Government of the Republic of Ireland were considering whether they should submit assembled evidence to an international authority. However, that is all that Mr. Bell said. He did not mention the Committee for Legal Action. The hon. Gentleman deliberately brought in a reference to that body, having first sought to discredit it. However, there was no reference to it in the B.B.C. report. In honour, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation against the Government of the Republic and the B.B.C.'s reporter.
I turn now to the main issue in the debate. We are told in paragraph 62 of the Compton Report:
It was confirmed that detainees attempting to rest or sleep by propping their heads against the wall were prevented from doing so. If a detainee collapsed on the floor, he was picked up by the armpits and placed against the wall to resume the approved posture.
We are told in paragraph 64 the number of hours that people were kept without sleep. In one case it was 43½ hours, in another it was 40 hours, and so on. We are told that starvation methods were applied. People were each given a piece of bread and some water every six hours. No matter what semantics the Government may use and no matter what semantics any defenders of these activities may use, this is brutality of a very bad kind. No other language will serve to describe it.
This debate is very important. It gives this House a rare opportunity to judge on behalf of all the people whether these are methods which Parliament wants to give the Government authority to use. It is no use anyone trying to make clever distinctions between one set of language and another. Nor is it relevant to inquire whether there were evil intentions in the minds of those who committed these acts.
I was a member of a commission which went to Northern Ireland after the events

of August 1969. I came back with complete conviction that it had been right to send the Army there. I have said so many times since, and I repeat today that many people in the Civil Rights Movement and similar movements told me that their lives had been saved by the arrival of the Army. I came back fully convinced that it was essential that this position should be maintained.
In my view, whichever Government are in office the political base of the Government's operations is to maintain confidence in the conduct of all our forces and other representatives in Northern Ireland. It is the duty of the Minister of State for Defence and, above all, of the Home Secretary to maintain continuous control of those activities.
These acts need further investigation. It is wholly irrelevant to say, as the Home Secretary said today, that they have produced evidence. That is the argument that the O.A.S. used in Algeria. It is the argument used by some East German representatives who parade themselves in Western Europe as the representatives of a new type of democracy. If one presses them about their methods of interrogation, they reply, "Yes, but they produce results." The Prime Minister knows that we do not accept that kind of argument from anyone else. We cannot accept it from the Government of the only real and representative democracy in the world today. The Home Secretary cannot deduce as justification the fact that it produces results. As The Guardian stated in a leading article this morning, not at all hostile to the Government, terror works. Of course it does. That is the term which has to be used. But the fact that terror works is no justification for a Government in a democratic country sanctioning its use.
If Parliament does not now say that there is a case to answer, that the Government must investigate the cases quoted in the report, and that we must, at the end of the debate, send out an assurance from the responsible Minister that this will be done, then the Government are beginning to see their way clear, if we do not get that assurance, towards sanctioning such activities in future.
It is not enough to say that the Privy Councillors will report. The Executive must assume responsibility at the end of


the debate and say to the House that, as the Government, they respect the Compton Report. I respect Sir Edmund Compton and any work in which he is involved. He has reported a number of cases which give rise to grave concern. The Government must investigate them and come back to the House with the results of their investigations.
Although this is not the subject of debate today, the political future of Northern Ireland is also involved. It is clear that the Government are contemplating a number of moves. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition returns, we shall hope to put before the House policy proposals for a possible political solution of this tragic situation. As an earnest of the Government's assurance to the House and the country that cases of physical ill-treatment do not have the stamp of their authority either in the past or in the future, they should tell us this afternoon that those cases which have been mentioned will be fully investigated. They should also make it quite clear that control over such methods of interrogation rest with the Government in London, and even with the Prime Minister personally because his attitude is involved. Nothing can be more serious than the good name of all the authorities in this country. It can only be tested against real events. The Government have a duty to the House and the country to give that assurance today.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat; this is not a matter of semantics. We are at war with the I.R.A. Why do the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway insist on showing themselves to the country as being allied to and in support of the enemies of this country?

Mr. Mendelson: I do not want to take up that particular allegation at this hour. I rest in the secure confidence, speaking for myself and my hon. Friends who normally share my views, that neither the Home Secretary nor the Minister of State would make that allegation against any one of us. I have consistently supported both Governments in supporting the work of the Army in trying to make peace. The Prime Minister knows that I have always been con-

sistent in my view. That is a wholly unworthy allegation.
If we are agreed that it is important to keep up the reputation of all who represent us here, the Government must pursue an investigation into the cases which I have mentioned.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) is quite wrong about the attitude of my hon. Friends. I do not wholly agree with them in their assessment of the situation, but it is absolutely unfair and would be quite untrue to suggest that they have in any way helped or condoned the activities of those whom he described as the enemies of this country. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the approach of some of my hon. Friends to this matter, he would not have made that allegation.
We are dealing with a limited but very important aspect of the whole problem of Northern Ireland, but it cannot be considered in isolation without regard to the background. That is why we shall hope, on a Supply Day very soon, to return to the broader political aspects of this matter which need consideration. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition returns, we shall be able to put some proposals before the House.
Among many good speeches today, the two which seem to illustrate our dilemma most closely were those of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell). I thought that hon. Members opposite were wrong to shout "Sit down" to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. They may not have liked what he said—I did not agree with it—but, in showing their impatience, they were displaying the incomprehension of the English when faced with an Irish situation. They must be ready to listen to this view, although they may not agree with it and may think it unworthy of consideration. But if that view is held by a substantial number of people in Ireland, then those who have to settle the problem must listen to and take it into account. Therefore, I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for


Fermanagh and South Tyrone, although I utterly disagreed with it, was one which should be carefully listened to and weighed for every accent.
Regarding the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West, we in Parliament sent him on many occasions to do our work for us. Therefore, we should listen to everything that he has to say on this matter. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that, however diligently and with however a divided conscience he may have sought to do his work and to put the questions which he put to us, I thought that his approach, and, indeed, the history of the work which we have sent him to do and for which we must take responsibility, has shown the inadequacy, taken by themselves, of the methods in which he has had to engage in the past. But the two speeches to which I have referred illustrate the nature of the dilemma which we have to face in considering the Compton Report.
The background to these events cannot be forgotten. They have been referred to more than once. I merely say in passing that there is a background of explosions, gelignite, bombs, the murder of soldiers and policemen, and the indifference of the I.R.A. Provisionals to the ordinary canons of human decency and behaviour and their complete absence of pity.
If we are to take all factors into account, we must also consider what the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West referred to as the spin-off which comes from internment. I doubt whether this factor was sufficiently weighed in taking the decision on internment—a situation which is built, readymade for exploitation.
I understand, although I do not accept, why some of the detainees would not appear before Compton, but they were ready to go on television last night and put their cases. It is true, and we must accept—I certainly do not deny it—that there is a propaganda war going on here which will be exploited for all it is worth. That should be weighed in the balance when we are considering whether it was a wise policy to detain and intern some 900 men, of whom 500 were later released. This is a factor to which we shall have to return next week.
Whilst the battle against the I.R.A. must go on—I have no doubt about that—the question is, how do we win it and what weapons do we employ in winning it? There is lawlessness and terrorism in many parts of Belfast. From my own correspondence—I venture to claim that every day I have more letters from Northern Ireland than any other Member in this House—I know that it sickens the people who live there.

Miss Devlin: More than me? Never!

Mr. Callaghan: I think even more than my hon. Friend. Anyway we will talk about it afterwards.
I know from the correspondence which reaches me that most people want to find a way out of the trap in which they have been caught. The propaganda of the I.R.A. has over-reached itself in this country, but it has only partially overreached itself in Ireland.
The minority are very ambivalent in their attitude towards the I.R.A., and the actions which are performed in our name and by our agents there can affect the attitude of the minority substantially. But, despite the indignation and horror with which most of us regard the actions of the Provisionals, we must not allow our policy to be dictated by revenge or by passion. If we do, we shall not only behave in an immoral way; we shall lose the battle.
We cannot justify any lowering of our standards by reference to the evils practised on our troops, for that kind of behaviour is self-perpetuating and leads only downwards, step by step, to more excesses on both sides. This is, I fear—and I must say this to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West—where the Parliamentarian must differ, and where the supremacy of Parliament must be asserted. Already we have gone some way down the slippery slope in Northern Ireland. First, there is violence by the Provisionals, and murder. That is followed by internment. Then we take another step downwards when we put these men into custody and employ methods of interrogation that involve physical ill-treatment. Now Conservative Members are calling for censorship of the Press and television. This is one more step on the downward path into the miasma. Every new measure leads us one step nearer the pit. These methods,


this action by itself will not suffice. We must return to discussions round the table and find political solutions at the earliest possible moment.
The Minister of State for Defence behaved quite improperly when he referred to these men as thugs and murderers. They have been neither tried nor convicted. Even on my limited examination of the names in the Compton Report this morning, I observed that one of those he described as thugs and murderers—Mr. Patrick Shivers—has been recommended for release by the Commission. The Minister of State for Defence has a responsibility not to inflame matters in this way. When I criticise what is happening, and there are some criticisms that I want to make, I repeat that the responsibility for these happenings lies in this House and not with the Army. It is we who have sent these men to do the job for us. It does not belong to the soldiers, but to us, as it is on our behalf that they have so acted.
As far as I can see from the Compton Report, there are only relatively minor ways in which the soldiers have exceeded the instructions on which they were acting. These are serious and we should take note of them. I would refer to some of them. Under the rules, action can be taken from which we would in normal circumstances recoil. For example, there is the question of hooding as outlined in paragraph 78. How does a man who is under a hood for several hours indicate that he needs to relieve himself, without getting into the position where it may be thought—he is, after all, unable to indicate—that he is trying to break down the position in which he has been put? This is a real dilemma. It may not appear important, but it is in the consideration of these matters.
Then there is the question in paragraphs 48 and 57(c) of men being propped up against the wall. Paragraph 48 says that they are to be propped up in a position where they are not under stress. I tried it myself: if one puts one's hands in a certain way it is relatively easy to hold the position for some time. Paragraph 57(c) says that they were put with their hands high above their heads. Again, hon. Members may say that they do not think this is important. I would suggest that they try standing in that position for several hours and

then ask themselves where ill-treatment descends into brutality. It is this matter which the Parker Commission will have to look at.
One other criticism is the inadequacy of the medical arrangements, especially at Girdwood Park. It is surely wrong that a daily medical examination was not laid down specifically in the instructions issued. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised a question which I want to put to the Minister of State, on interrogation. Was the interrogation done after reference to him, or on the authority of those who conducted it, and no more? If it was the second, should it not be the case that these methods of interrogation, which, as is admitted, involve physical ill-treatment, should be specifically authorised by the Minister on every occasion on which they are undertaken? Is that not the least we can expect if this kind of method is employed?
We do not know whether the report is balanced, because of the refusal of internees to appear before Compton. It is my view, and I share it with others in the House, that Compton has done the best possible job and has probably got pretty close to the truth.
There are accounts in the Press that the methods will be changed in advance of the Parker Report. Is this so? What is the policy to be? I suggest that the Parker Commission should, as the Home Secretary said, now consider not only the directive but also the methods to be employed. It should not brood in isolation. It ought to consult people skilled in this matter who may have had to conduct it on past occasions, distasteful though it may be. It should consult medical practitioners, the police, psychiatrists and all concerned. I take it that there is agreement in this House on the principle that we cannot yield upon the matter of physical ill-treatment as a means of securing information. That is where we must all stand; that is where I stand on this particular matter.
It is, I know, easier to say what should not be done than to define what should be done. I have tried to think about legitimate forms of pressure. At what point does hostile questioning take on a cruel tinge? These are the difficult issues which this Commission will have to settle. It is not enough to win the battle


against the I.R.A. if we lose the battle to reconcile the minority and the majority.
If we look back two years, it will be seen that the Army then had the confidence of the minority and the acquiescience of the majority. Today it has the confidence of the majority and the hostility of the minority. That does not solve anything. It transfers the weight of the problem from one foot to another Reconciliation may seem hopeless at present. I do not believe it need be, and it is to this matter that the House must address its attention next week when we return to this subject. It must continue to do so until peace is restored and majority and minority are reconciled. This will be done in the end not by the methods employed here, but by political discussion and decision.

6.39 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): We have been discussing very serious and grave matters. It is right to look at the actions of the security forces against a realistic examination of part of what is going on in Northern Ireland today.
The aim of the I.R.A. is so to terrorise the population that co-operation with the Government becomes impossible. It aims to destroy the normal political processes. It aims so to terrorise witnesses that the courts of law are unable to operate, so that its own members can act with impunity. It aims through bloodshed to establish its own rules and its own authority instead of the laws of the country. Its methods are brutal, callous, barbaric. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell) said that we are engaged in a test of will. The I.R.A. now knows that the troops will not give way before gunpower—but it hopes to sap the will-power of ordinary men and women in this country, so that sickened with the horror of what is going on, we shall despair.
Many allegations have been made of brutality against the security forces—allegations about both the period of arrest and the period immediately following that when the arrested persons remained in custody. These have been repeated in different media and so appear

to be numerous but they are based upon a handful of statements made by men to the Association of Legal Justice and they were not corroborated by any other evidence. I am sure that the great majority of the public who have watched the Army on television month after month, going about its extremely difficult task, have found many of these allegations totally unconvincing. As a Government we could not brush them aside and ignore them. Some people might have believed the allegations, however unlikely they sounded. Some people probably had no idea what to believe. It was for this reason, at the request of the Army, rightly concerned for its good name, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said, that the impartial inquiry was set up by the Home Secretary. The allegations which were examined by the Committee fall broadly into two classes—

Miss Devlin: rose—

Lord Balniel: The time which I have at my disposal is incredibly limited and it would be quite wrong of me to give way.

Miss Devlin: Would the hon. Gentleman—

Lord Balniel: —those relating to the initial arrests and the small number which relate—

Miss Devlin: Would the hon. Gentleman—

Lord Balniel: I have literally 10 minutes in which to answer the debate and the allegations which have been made are so substantial that it is wrong for me to give way. I think it would be for the convenience of the House—

Miss Devlin: It is important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. The hon. Lady must resume her seat.

Lord Balniel: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with these two points separately.

Miss Devlin: Would the hon. Gentleman answer one simple question?

Lord Balniel: The report makes it clear that there is no truth in the allegations


that soldiers behaved brutally while making—

Miss Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Lord Balniel: — arrests. In two or three cases—

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to point out that, while it is not my deliberate intention to try to disrupt the House, the question I wish to ask is of major importance? I have not been given an opportunity to speak in the debate and it is my avowed intention to remain on my feet until I am permitted to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has already heard that there is to be another debate next week. I think that she should allow the Minister to reply.

Lord Balniel: In two or three cases in the process of arrest, out of a total—

Miss Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Lord Balniel: — of 342 persons who were arrested—

Miss Devlin: I would ask the hon. Gentleman in the interests—

Lord Balniel: —the Committee found that the arrested men suffered some hardship—but this was never deliberately inflicted on them.

Miss Devlin: Would the hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Lord Balniel: I have in mind the case of Mr. Cummings—

Miss Devlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not persist. She is making it appear as if she is deliberately trying to stop the Minister replying. There are certain rules of order in the House, and I must ask the hon. Lady not to persist.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention—has the

hon. Gentleman given way? I am sorry that I have taken up so much time—

Hon. Members: No.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Name her.

Miss Devlin: I would ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Lady was rising on a point of order. I want to hear the point of order.

Miss Devlin: I am sorry. I understood that the hon. Gentleman had given way.

Hon. Members: No.

Lord Balniel: What is quite clear to the House is that the hon. Lady does not wish to have the answers that I am attempting to give to these allegations.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order—

Lord Balniel: When allegations are made against the security forces of such a serious nature—

Miss Devlin: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Miss Devlin: I did make it perfectly clear that I was not deliberately trying to prevent the Minister replying but I have an important question which should be asked of the hon. Gentleman at this juncture. Why is it that he is afraid of one simple question? It would have taken much less time if I had been allowed to ask it. If he decides that he does not wish to answer it at this stage, let him say so, but I would ask him to give way and hear the question.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Lord Balniel.

Lord Balniel: I now have five minutes in which to reply to a debate which has proceeded for three hours. As I was making clear, in the two or three cases during the process of arrest, out of a total of 342 arrests, the Committee found that the arrested man did suffer some hardship but this was never deliberately inflicted.
I have in mind the case of Mr. Cummings, who was hooded and bound as a military precaution. The hardship he


suffered was a grazed chin when he fell—hardship far removed from the allegation of being beaten and urinated on, being kneed in the groin and struck in the face.
I also have in mind the case of Mr. Gilmore, who was hit by accident, and the case of Mr. Moore, the one person who was prepared to substantiate his allegations. I hope that those who are so quick to believe the allegations against the security forces and to condemn the Army will now be just as quick to accept that the findings of the inquiry show that the Army conducted itself with credit.
I come now to that part of the report dealing with allegations of brutality against detainees during interrogation. These allegations have received a great deal of publicity but they relate to only a very small number of persons, 14 out of 1,000 who have been arrested. The fact that the number is small does not, of course, in any way diminish the importance of the matter.

Mr. George Cunningham: Exactly.

Lord Balniel: The Committee was given full access to evidence and was able to talk to the security forces. Again it found no evidence of physical brutality, still less of torture or brain-washing. It did find that certain aspects of the application of the general rules governing the interrogation constituted physical ill-treatment. But this does not mean that any of the men suffered any physical or mental injury.
In its report the Committee refers to the evidence of the medical officer stationed at the centre. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen would listen. The medical officer said, according to the Committee:
He told us that those in charge of the centre had impressed him with their concern to avoid physical injury to their charges and had given him every support in allowing him to exercise his professional duties. We put on record that both in his actions as recorded and by his evidence given to us, this officer satisfied us as having maintained the standards of the medical profession to which he belongs.
An examination of the exit medical records, and I have personally examined every single one of them, shows that the general state of health of each of the individuals interrogated is recorded as

being "Fit". The basic fact is that there was no brutality, no torture, no brainwashing, no physical injury, no mental injury.

Mr. Heffer: Really!

Lord Balniel: If the security forces are to defeat the terrorists—

Mr. Heffer: Forty-three hours against the wall!

Lord Balniel: If we are to end the bloodshed, if we are to save the lives of civilians and of police and troops, if we are to end this odious campaign of murder and violence which has caused the death of so many innocent civilians, we must have good intelligence. Polite and leisurely questioning of suspected terrorists will not provide this information.
I should like to try very briefly to answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The formal authorisation to remove certain detainees to the interrogation centre was necessarily given by the Northern Ireland Minister for Home Affairs, with the knowledge and concurrence of Her Majesty's Government. Ministers knew that the interrogation would be conducted within the guidelines laid down in 1965 and 1967 and that the methods would be the same as have been used on numerous occasions in the past. Their detailed application was necessarily a matter for the judgment of those immediately responsible.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Lord Balniel: The Government of course have taken note of the Committee's findings. However, the Committee's job was simply to establish the facts, and it did not have the difficult task of deciding what methods could be militarily justified. It did not have the task of balancing the intensity of the interrogation of people strongly suspected of being deeply implicated in terrorism against the possibility of obtaining information which would save lives. It is an incredibly difficult judgment to make. It necessarily arises when intensity of interrogation has to be weighed against the desperate need to save lives and end the bloodshed. Because it is such a difficult subject, we have thought it right to refer the subject to a committee of Privy Councillors to examine the procedures. The


information which has been obtained from interrogation—

Mr. McManus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister replying to an important debate deliberately to avoid answering the central issues that are so important to so many hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Lord Balniel: The information obtained from interrogation has been invaluable. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot be specific. Were I to be specific, the lives of those who gave the information would immediately be put at risk; and we have seen enough of what I.R.A. vengeance means. On the very day when this matter was raised in the House of Commons, a man was tarred and feathered and shot through the legs. We have only to look at other examples of I.R.A. vengeance—men bound, gagged, shot through the mouth. John Kavanagh, Albert Bell and Robert McFarland—to all those whom the I.R.A. suspects of having given information it will give no mercy whatever.

It being three hours alter the commencement of the Proceedings, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration); and the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16th November], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

6.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I am sure that the House will understand if I concentrate my speech today on those parts of the Bill and on the comments of hon. and right hon. Members relating specifically to Wales. The Bill seeks to reduce the number of major local authorities in Wales from 181 to 45, from 13 county councils, four county borough and 164 non-county borough and district councils to eight county councils and 37 district councils.
This is one of the last stages in a long and wearying chain of events stretching back to 1945 when the Local Government Boundary Commission which was known as the Trustram Eve Commission was set up to consider both England and Wales. Since then, we have had in Wales a long drawn out series of reviews, draft proposals, final proposals, White Papers and consultative documents.
I am sure that hon. Members will join with me in thanking the members and officers of local authorities in Wales for their patience and constancy in doing the work of local government while putting up with what must have seemed a never ending series of proposals and counterproposals for change. I am sure that there must have been moments when the people concerned were sorely tempted to say to the Government, "Either decide what you are to do and do it, or keep quiet and let us get on with our work."
One thing is certain—seldom can any issue of government have been more exhaustively debated and discussed. I must express my gratitude to the members and officers of local authorities for the work, the care and the thought that they have put into comments on my consultative document. I circulated a brief summary of the main opinions expressed on the new counties and districts, but, of course, the summary cannot do justice to the range and depth of the comments that


I have received. There is a large measure of support for the principles of the proposals, but there are many disagreements with the proposals for particular areas. But where there are these disagreements, they are not just between the local authorities and the Government: there is no local agreement on an acceptable alternative to the Government's proposals.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have urged that there should be a separate Bill for Wales. The main reason why the Government are going ahead with a Bill covering England and Wales is simply that the time has come when local government in both England and Wales must be reorganised on the same timetable. In their five and a half years of office the Opposition failed to produce a Bill which dealt with Welsh local government separately from England. In England they had the excuse that they had set up a Royal Commission to examine the problem. In Wales, however, they shouldered the responsibility right from the start of producing and implementing their own proposals without the benefit of a Royal Commission.
After two and a half years they produced their White Paper of July 1957. That White Paper gave two reasons—I refer to paragraph 2—why Wales was not included within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. The first was that the need for early action was particularly urgent in Wales. The second was that at the time the Royal Commissions for England and Scotland were set up, in 1966,
consideration of local government throughout Wales was well advanced".
It was said that that work had reached a point where it was apparent that local government in the Principality could be reorganised on lines that would secure its early strengthening.
One would have thought, therefore, that a Bill to reorganise Welsh local government would have followed while the Labour Party was still in office, and certainly there was no doubt that the Conservative Party would not have opposed the main lines of reform proposed in the 1967 White Paper. What happened, however, was a steady withdrawal from the exposed position of treating Wales separately from England. On 21st November, 1968, the right hon. Member

for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) sent a letter to Welsh local authorities making three points, apart from announcing important changes in the pattern of counties and districts proposed in 1967.
First, the right hon. Gentleman considered that the evolutionary approach to reorganisation embodied in the White Paper was likely to be the most satisfactory for Wales at that time. Second, however, he was prepared for those local authority associations and individual local authorities which so wished to have a further opportunity to submit their views on the form which the reorganisation should take after they had been able to consider the report of the Royal Commission. Third, he proposed to continue with the task of translating into detailed proposals for legislation the form of organisation outlined in the White Paper.
Phase two of the withdrawal followed in October, 1969, after the publication of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West then announced that he was undertaking a further urgent review of the situation in South Wales with the object of putting an end to the present division between administrative counties and county boroughs.

Mr. George Thomas: As we are to have a shortened debate, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he needs to go over all this history?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes.

Mr. George Thomas: In that case, I shall feel the same need.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I need to do it because I have to explain why there is not a separate Bill for Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will understand the situation.
Phase three was the White Paper of March, 1970, following the White Paper on England which was published the previous month. The right hon. Gentlemon proposed three unitary areas in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. The final paragraph of that White Paper said:
The Government's objective will be to embody their proposals for Glamorgan and Monmouthshire and for other parts of Wales in comprehensive legislation at the earliest practicable date.


Not even the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that that White Paper was received other than most violently by his hon. Friends and, indeed, by the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.
I am not criticising the previous Administration for undertaking the review of local government in Wales, or for taking their time over it. What I am saying is that by talking in 1967 about the urgent need for reform and then climbing down from that position, step by step, over the next three years they produced a great amount of ill-feeling, alarm and despondency among local authorities and their staff, with no practical effect. Further, they made sure that local government reorganisation in Wales must proceed on exactly the same timetable as reorganisation in England or, alternatively, follow after it.
When I took office, therefore, I had the choice of pressing ahead with the object of introducing legislation to reorganise local government in Wales in 1971–72, the same year as legislation for England, or waiting until the English Bill was out of the way, in the hope of then being able to introduce a Bill covering Wales. I had no doubt that the right course was to go for legislation in 1971–72 so that the new authorities could come into being in April 1974. Every local authority association that I met pressed the importance of this, and so did N.A.L.G.O.
If Welsh local government is to be reorganised by legislation in the same parliamentary Session as English local government, there is no realistic possibility of the two operations being carried out in separate Bills.

Mr. George Thomas: Why not?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall explain why.
Hon. Members will have noted the size of the Bill with which we are concerned today. It is 100 pages longer than the London Government Act of 1963 as it emerged from Parliament. A separate Welsh Bill would not be much smaller. It would consist of about 200 Clauses. That is because both England and Wales are covered by the same code of local government law. Its size would arise from the fact that we would have to rewrite or amend the existing body of local government law applying

to both England and Wales, which would mean dealing with 140 Statutes. For most of these provisions there is not, and I believe never has been, any serious question of applying different provisions to Wales from those applying in England. Legislation to reform local government in England and Wales must, therefore, involve amendment of some of the Statutes as they apply to both countries.
Further, even though there may be differences between the two systems in the two countries, most of the amendments must be in exactly similar terms. I should therefore find it impossible, in these circumstances, to justify asking Parliament to consider two enormous Bills in the same Session, both of which would contain provisions in exactly similar terms. It would be a gross waste of parliamentary time in any Session. In the present Session, which is crowded with legislation, it would be an impossibility.

Mr. John Silkin: Surely that is the strongest possible argument—and there are others—for taking this legislation on the Floor of the House? That would speed it up, and give every hon. Member a chance to air his views.

Mr. Thomas: That is an entirely different point. I am saying why it is impossible, and wholly impracticable, in the present Session for there to be going through Parliament, side by side, two enormous Bills of the size which this obviously would be.

Mr. Alec Jones: rose—

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have been told that there is not much time left.
Once the previous Administration had thrown away the chance of legislating for Wales ahead of England, the only way of legislating separately for Wales was to delay the Welsh Bill until a Session after the English Bill, and adapt the new English Act to a new Welsh system. That, I understand, is what hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see done, since it would be a necessary consequence of waiting to see what the Commission on the Constitution recommends. But I am not prepared to delay reorganisation in Wales for at least a year after the English


reorganisation simply in order to put a separate Bill on the Statute Book. It is not fair to members and officers of Welsh local authorities to protract the period of uncertainty and upheaval for at least another year beyond the date of reorganisation in England. The only way of clearing away the uncertainty left by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West is to legislate without further delay, and in that I am supported by local authority and staff associations.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that because of the method adopted by the Government to implement the major changes in the Bill, as opposed to those set out in the Consultative Document for Wales, the elected representatives of Wales in this House will be denied the opportunity of discussing changes which came to light only when the Bill was introduced?

Mr. Thomas: I know that that is an emotive way of putting it. By no stretch of the imagination can this Measure be considered to be exclusively a Welsh Bill.

Mr. George Thomas: It ought to be.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies will be treated on the same basis as English Members, and will have the same opportunity to challenge the Bill, or any parts of it, on the Floor of the House and in Committee.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that one reason why he was not prepared to wait for another Session before introducing a Welsh Bill was that it would be unfair to local authorities and officers throughout Wales. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman found out from those authorities which they would prefer?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member will remember that in the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee—

Mr. Alec Jones: It was not this question that we debated in the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Thomas: —I quoted at length the Monmouthshire County Council's very

strong submission that we should not delay. This is the view which has been expressed to me by all the local authority associations and, indeed, by the staff side. It is an extremely important point.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) and the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) both mentioned the possibility of an elected Welsh Council arising from the work of the Commission on the Constitution. This issue has been discussed at some length already on previous occasions.
Let me make a few points clear. First, the Government have a completely open mind on any recommendations which the Crowther Commission may make in relation to Wales. Second, I do not accept that the work of the Crowther Commission and the possibility that it may recommend an elected council for Wales are in any way a bar to immediate legislation to reform Welsh local government. In their comments a few local authorities have suggested postponement, but this has been vigorously opposed by others, including, for example, the Monmouthshire County Council. I apologise to the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones); it was that submission which I quoted in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Caernarvon specifically mentioned the terms of reference of the Crowther Commission. I think that the right hon. Gentleman referred to them as "the remit". He said this:
That remit specifically says that the Commission is to have regard for local government matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 335.]
The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate. The terms of reference do not use those words. The Commission's terms of reference are
To examine the present functions of the Central Legislature and Government in relation to the several countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom, to consider, having regard to developments in local government organisation and in the administrative and other relationships between the various parts of the United Kingdom, and to the interests of the prosperity and good government of our people under the Crown, whether any changes are desirable in those functions or otherwise in present constitutional and economic relationships between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man".


As I understand that, it does not ask for developments to be arrested. All that it says is that the Commission must have regard to development, and the Commission must clearly do that. Those terms of reference give no help to those who argue that the conclusions of the Crowther Commission may open the way to an entirely new look at the system of local government in Wales. This is not surprising, because the terms of reference were evidently drafted with the specific object of not cutting across the progress of local government reform. Yesterday reference was made to what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) said in his speech in the debate on the Address on 30th October, when he made that clear.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: It is a matter of judgment. The Secretary of State has given his own judgment. That is what I did last night. I did not quote from the remit. I gave in my own words my judgment of what the remit meant in regard to local government. I freely accept that there may be a variation in individual judgments about the meaning of the words in the remit.
As regards what the Secretary of State said about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that at that time the report of the Crowther Commission was not imminent. Therefore, there was force in what my right hon. Friend said about not waiting for the report, just as there is force in our point today that as the Crowther Commission's report is imminent in the next few weeks or months we might usefully wait to see what it says.

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that the Crowther report is imminent within the next few weeks. I cannot say when it will be ready. As right hon. and hon. Members know, Lord Crowther himself told me that he saw no reason why we should not go ahead. I believe that Lord Crowther has written to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) informing him of the conversation which he had with me and has told the hon. Gentleman that he could publish that letter. I notice that there has been no publication of the letter. I see no reason why the legislation should be

delayed. I think it is very important that it should not be delayed.

Mr. Neil McBride: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned Swansea. Under Clause 23(5) a petition must be presented for style and status. The Clause does not mention a city. Her Majesty was graciously pleased to accord Swansea the style and status of a city. Does not the proposal in the Clause detract from the honour which Swansea was granted by its Sovereign, in that we must apply afresh under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. This is a matter which should be carefully considered, because I was under the impression that there would be no difficulty about the title "city". I will consider this point and contact the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Secretary of State will appreciate that the cities of Birmingham and Manchester and other cities will expect any arrangements made for Swansea—I agree that they should be made—to apply to English cities, too.

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that is so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. It will be considered.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, but I do not think it is fair for me to give way too much, because of the shortage of time.

Mr. Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with one point?

Mr. Thomas: No.
It is only right that I should mention the important points on which the proposals for Wales embodied in the Bill are in line with the proposals of the previous Administration.
First, these proposals involve allocating the main local government functions between two sets of authorities—the county councils and the district councils. It was a common factor in all successive proposals of the previous Administration that the greater part of the geographical area of Wales should be dealt with in this way.
I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Caernarvon say yesterday that we should look once more at the possibility of unitary


authorities. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West nodded in agreement when one of his hon. Friends on the back benches suggested a similar thing. The only time when the previous Administration looked at unitary authorities for part of Wales was in the review which led up to the White Paper presented by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West in March 1970. That White Paper certainly got a very hostile reception from his hon. Friends and, indeed, throughout Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.
Second, the Government's present proposals are based on the principle that, wherever reasonably practicable, the new counties should each have a minimum population of 250,000 and the new districts should each have a minimum population of 40,000. I say "reasonably practicable", because I agree with the right hon. Member for Caernarvon that we cannot in Wales adhere rigidly to these criteria; and we have proposed two counties below the 250,000 limit and several districts below 40,000.
I am not sure whether the previous Administration ever committed themselves publicly to the population criteria on which their proposals were based. The fact is that most of the counties and districts proposed in the Bill are identical to, or very like, those proposed at one time or another by the previous Ad ministration.
Third, the Bill is based on the principle that the present divisions between administrative counties and county boroughs must be ended. The previous Administration accepted this principle in respect of both England and Wales once it had been set out by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission.
The main proposals that I have just outlined—that is, the division of functions between county councils and district councils, the minimum population criteria for the new counties and the ending of the divisions between counties and county boroughs—are common to the new systems in both England and Wales.
There are, however, some differences between England and Wales which ought to be mentioned now.
One important transitional difference is that all the new Welsh districts are specified in the Bill, in Schedule 4, whereas the English districts, outside the metropolitan counties, will be defined by Order of the Secretary of State after a review by the proposed Local Government Boundary Commission for England.
In deciding to define all the Welsh districts in the Bill, we adopted the same policy as the previous Administration, which specified all their proposed districts in their White Paper of July 1967, and in later amended versions of it.
Incidentally, we have also adopted many of the previous Administration's proposals for districts. Seventeen of the districts specified in the Bill are exactly the same as those proposed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West following reconsideration of the comments on the White Paper of July 1967, and several others are very little different from the corresponding districts which he then proposed.
I am sure that the previous Administration were right in themselves making proposals for the new districts in Wales. There is a great and entirely understandable desire among those concerned to know where they stand at the earliest possible date.
The other important differences between the English provisions and the Welsh provisions in the Bill arise from the different proposals for English parishes and Welsh communities. Here again, we have based our ideas on the ideas of the previous Administration. I think they were entirely right, in the particular circumstances of Wales with its high proportion of very small boroughs and urban districts, to propose that bodies equivalent to parish councils should be set up for existing boroughs and urban districts where there was a local demand for them.
They were entirely right, also, in my view, to propose that there should be an early review of existing rural parishes, along with what are now boroughs and urban districts. I accept that it is essential to create a more effective pattern of "grass roots" councils, effective in the sense of being better able to carry out parish council functions and to express local opinion.
We have adopted both the ideas of the previous Administration, with the modification that the initial review of the areas of the new communities will be carried out as soon as possible after 1st April, 1974, by the proposed Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales.
I come now to the proposal which has attracted more attention, particularly in South Wales, than anything else in the Bill; namely, the decision that there should be a third county in the present geographical area of Glamorgan. Obviously, this issue is likely to be talked about at some length as the Bill goes through Parliament. I mention it now partly because it is of such importance in itself. After all, nearly half the population of Wales lives in that area.
In an intervention yesterday evening, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West suggested that my proposals for a South Glamorgan County had never seen the light of day until the Bill was published. That is rubbish. The whole argument about whether East Glamorgan should be divided into two was conducted in public in Wales for months following publication of my consultative document. When I met the Glamorgan County Council on 6th August, it presented me with detailed cases which it had drawn up against the Cardiff City Council's proposal for a South Glamorgan County and against Merthyr Tydfil County Borough's proposals for a Heads of the Valleys County.
Further, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the argument about South Glamorgan attracted great attention in all parts of Wales and from members of all political parties.

Mr. Alec Jones: It was all paid for.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman can say that if he likes. I am talking about people like Sir Julian Hodge and the Archbishop of Wales—

Mr. Alec Jones: Thousands of pounds were spent on publicity.

Mr. Thomas: It is right that the hon. Gentleman should explain what he meant by his intervention. It just shows the danger—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We must try to avoid sedentary interruptions. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can avoid the

temptation to answer them, it will be quicker for everyone.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: No. Over 40 local authorities from all parts of Wales expressed their opposition to my proposals for East Glamorgan. I shall not go through them now, but they include counties such as Anglesey and Merioneth, the non-county borough of Caernarvon, and 40 others, all expressing their opposition. The people who expressed their strong opposition to my proposals for East Glamorgan came from all political parties.
My reasons for proposing two counties in East Glamorgan instead of one amount to this. I was convinced by the arguments presented to me, in particular by the Cardiff City Council—[Laughter.]and the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council that this was the only way of enabling the different parts of that area to deal with their problems and seize their opportunities.
When meeting local authorities to discuss local government reorganisation, I have often tried to persuade them to look at the operation as an attempt to set up an entirely new system of local government and not as a process of sorting out existing local authorities in which some will be the gainers and some the losers. Obviously, it is sensible to have regard to the existing system and to try to build on its strengths wherever one can, but no existing local authority's area or status can be treated as inviolable. The main test must be what system offers the best hope for the future, not what has performed well in the past.

Mr. Brynmor John: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry; I must get on.
In the consultative document in February I set out what seemed to me then, and still seem to me, the strong arguments for dividing the geographical area of Glamorgan into not more than two new counties. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. and learned Gentleman has changed his mind."] I set those arguments out clearly. I still consider that the suggestion was a good one. I


had hoped—[Interruption.]—I wish the hon. Member for Rhondda, West would listen—that the idea would attract some measure of support from the county council and county borough councils concerned. Not a bit of it. Swansea Borough Council was prepared to accept the proposed boundaries of West Glamorgan, although it disagreed with the principle of having districts within it. However, the Glamorgan County Council insisted that, whatever else happened, the existing administrative county area must be retained intact as the whole or the major part of a new county. The Cardiff City Council and the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, on the other hand, told me that, in their view, the interests of the northern and the southern parts of the proposed East Glamorgan County were fundamentally opposed.
Faced with this general opposition to my proposals for East Glamorgan, I had to think again. It was clear that there was no substantial body of opinion ready to try to make an East Glamorgan County Council work effectively. On the contrary, there was a widespread belief that the interests of the northern and the southern parts diverged sharply. I concluded that I could not ask Parliament to approve a proposal for an East Glamorgan County because a county council for this area would be seriously weakened by the strongly opposed interests within it.
After considering all the arguments—I saw many people on this matter—I came to the clear view that representatives of South Glamorgan could not be expected to concern themselves as effectively as they should with the special problems of the Valley towns, which are quite different from those faced in Cardiff and the coastal plain; and, equally, that representatives of the Valley towns could not reasonably be expected to give priority to the tasks which Cardiff sees as essential if it is to continue as a leading centre of industry and commerce.
The representatives of mid-Glamorgan will be able to concentrate on the problems that face them without having to waste their energies on arguing in a single East Glamorgan County Council—

Mr. Fred Evans: They will have no money.

Mr. Thomas: I shall come to that—with representatives of South Glamorgan, who would wish to devote time and money to making Cardiff a more efficient administrative and commercial centre. It could be argued that other of the new counties and districts will also be afflicted by divergencies of interests within their separate parts. These arguments turn on matters of degree and judgment.
However, there is one important point to make about Glamorgan. The proposed counties of Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan will both be authorities with populations much above the desirable minimum of 250,000. Mid-Glamorgan, with a 533,000 population, will have an influence in Wales commensurate with its size.
The hon. Gentleman talked about money just now. I accept that the rateable value per head in Mid-Glamorgan will be comparatively low, but rateable value per head has never been regarded as a crucial factor in determining the new pattern of local government. The resources of most local authorities in Wales are bound to continue to depend in large measure on Exchequer grants, and creating a county of East Glamorgan, with a population of over 900,000, would have little advantage from this point of view over creating two smaller counties.
The right hon. Member for Caernarvon laid great stress yesterday on the need first to identify the communities on which the new local authority areas should be based. I agree with this rule, and have tried to apply it in considering the new counties and districts. Applying it to Glamorgan left me in no doubt that there must be three counties there.
It was suggested yesterday that some of my proposals amounted to gerrymandering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is suggested that my proposals for counties and districts have been influenced by thoughts of parliamentary electoral advantage. As I said earlier, most of my geographical proposals are the same as, or very similar to, those of the previous Administration. I was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman accused me of gerrymandering, because the accusation followed the example of many of his hon. Friends. What did surprise me was his choice of illustrations of my alleged malpractice. The


first was the southern boundary of Breconshire. Here we have the Local Government Commission for Wales, an entirely independent body, urging that the southern industrial fringe of Breconshire should be part of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. That proposition is supported by the authorities most immediately concerned, the Brynmawr Urban District Council and the Vaynor Rural District Council, and all the authorities concerned on the southern side of the present boundary, the Glamorgan and Monmouthsire County Councils, the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and the district councils in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. It is also supported by the facts of geography. That is why I am proposing to change the southern boundary of Breconshire.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has been very selective in choosing the areas which will depart from Breconshire, and that not all the local authorities agree with him? We have been studying the comments that have come in. I will not go into great detail at this stage, because I hope to catch the eye of the Chair later.

Mr. Thomas: I agree that the fact that Ystradgynlais has not been put into Glamorgan is an instance of being selective. It clearly had a community of interest with Glamorgan, but, unlike Brynmawr and Vaynor, it did not want to be put into Glamorgan but wanted to remain with Brecon. I followed the wishes of the local authority and the people.

Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: No, because the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with Brecon.
The Gower Rural District Council was another illustration by the right hon. Gentleman. Here we have the R.D.C., the elected body most directly concerned, resolving unanimously that it wants its whole district in the same district as Swansea. Here again the proposition is supported by the facts of geography and present administration. The present R.D.C. offices are in Swansea. We have the Swansea City Council saying—not with any great enthusiasm, I admit—that

it is prepared to accept union with Gower. It is clearly a sensible and acceptable solution. The right hon. Gentleman will know what the leader of the Labour Council of Swansea said after my proposals had been made.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House. He has had another communication from the Gower R.D.C. stating that at a more recent meeting there was a very small majority indeed in favour.

Mr. Thomas: I do not want to mislead the House, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when my proposals were finally formed there was a meeting at which that proposal was unanimously agreed by the Gower R.D.C.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Thomas: I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and so I shall conclude by saying that I do not claim that my proposals will be universally welcomed in Wales. Of course they will not be. There are several areas where local authorities are bitterly opposed to them—not just Glamorgan, which has attracted so much attention, but Pembrokeshire and some of the rural counties. But I do say that my proposals have attracted as much support as any worthwhile set of proposals for reform are likely to attract. Further, I believe that they offer a unique opportunity to set up strong, independent and efficient control authorities, responsive to the needs and feelings of the public they represent. There is a great reservoir of experience, talent and public spirit among members and officers of local authorities. I am convinced that the Bill will give them at last a chance to use their talents to the full.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State has made a deplorable speech. I propose to deal with the two big issues he raised, a separate Bill for Wales and Glamorganshire.
The Tory Party has never been any good to Wales. It has never given us a fair deal, because the Tories feel that they have nothing to lose, nothing but a little coterie of seven lonely Members, one of whom has been sunk without trace in the dark recesses of the Whips' office, never


to be heard again. Another is gagged on Welsh affairs as he is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that leaves five. In view of the contempt with which the Prime Minister treated them when the jobs were handed out, it seems that they might as well go into purdah with the other two.
The Secretary of State's reply to the feeling in Wales has been hopelessly inadequate. He attempted to explain why there is no separate Measure for Wales, and he gave us a long history. I will give a potted history, and one that is a little more accurate. In 1964, when the present Leader of the Opposition created the Welsh Office, one of the powers he handed over for Wales to control completely was local government. For the first time we enjoyed power to decide our own destiny in matters concerning local government, and all Wales welcomed this giant step towards devolution.
My two predecessors and I, when we held the office of Secretary of State, made it clear in this House and to Wales that the Welsh Office would produce its own local government Bill. The Department was fully geared to this task and so it has been in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's time as well.
For over a century this House has recognised Wales as a nation with special rights in this House, but we waited for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to follow a subterfuge to avoid giving Wales what is its fair and proper due in Parliament. The House laid down over a century ago in Standing Orders that every Measure solely and exclusively devoted to Wales shall be sent to a Committee on which every Welsh constituency hon. Member has a right to serve.
Yesterday's shoddy manoeuvre deliberately deprived Wales of the right Parliament intended it should enjoy. It is insolent for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time to allow Wales to have its own Measure, particularly on the biggest change in local government for over 50 years. The amount of time that is given in this House to legislation for Wales does not add up to much; and when there is an opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman deliberately to throw it away,

he betrays his trust as the guardian of Welsh interests.
The Secretary of State for Scotland does not say, "It would be a waste of time because our Measure would be very much like the English one." Not on your life. If he did, he would not last a week, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not deserve to, either.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman knows that Scotland has not only a different body of law but a different body of local government law.

Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to do better than that. He knows as well as I do that there are many Measures dealing with the same principles for Scotland as for England, and there is a separate Bill for Scotland.
In any event, there are major differences in the Welsh legislation that is cocooned within this English Measure, and hon. Members have drawn attention to them. There are no metropolitan areas in Wales, a matter with which is concerned a significant part of the proposals of the Secretary of State for the Environment for England. The functions of district councils in Wales are radically different from those in England. The size of our district councils is different. I do not believe that there is one in England with a population of fewer than 40,000. One can find several in Wales.
The boundaries of the district councils in Wales are fixed within the Measure. Not so the boundaries of the English district councils—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself referred to the variations proposed for the treatment of our community councils compared with the parish councils in England.
There are two possible reasons which the Secretary of State did not reveal why he was prepared to diminish the Welsh Office and betray his trust in this regard. The first, which is widely accepted throughout Wales by Conservative, Liberal and Labour alike, is that he wanted a separate Bill for Wales but was defeated in the Cabinet. The Conservative Western Mail wrote in a leading article that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had "succumbed to pressure" from inside the Cabinet. It also spoke of "a surrender" on his part to his right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Despite the infinite capacity of the Welsh for sympathising with people in trouble, we are getting tired of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's succession of defeats. Any Welshman worthy of his heritage would have resigned rather than humiliate Wales as we are being humiliated in this Measure. The Secretary of State would be a bigger man in Wales today if he had saved us this indignity.
The weakness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a disaster for Wales. He has proven this time and again. A weak man in high office is an expensive luxury—too expensive for Wales. But what does he care? He does not mind what I say or what the Welsh people say because no Welsh electorate can banish him for this gross betrayal.
Wales now knows the price—it is proved in this Bill—that it pays for the arrogance of the Prime Minister in foisting on the Welsh Office two Ministers with English constituencies. In any case, he gave us the wrong Peter. If we are not to have a Minister with a Welsh constituency, we might as well have a Minister who is successful—the one who wins the battles over the Secretary of State for Wales and who, whenever there is conflict, makes sure that the Secretary of State for Wales is No. 2 and he is No. 1.
The second reason is that the Secretary of State may not have realised the depth of feeling in Wales on this subject—the bitter resentment that crosses party lines. Even his own party friends in Wales are dissatisfied with him. For example, Conservative county councillor, Mrs. P. M. Y. Winn-Jones, was reported in the South Wales Echo as having said that she had been horrified that the views of only one authority, Cardiff, had been taken into consideration by the Minister. She added:
I felt this last set of proposals was not honest … for the first time I was ashamed of something my own political party had proposed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, by submitting on this major issue of principle of the right of Wales to have its own Bill introduced in the House, has forfeited the right ever to speak for Wales.
We require the Comimttee stage of this Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. If it goes upstairs, four out of every five Welsh hon. Members are likely to be unable to advance their constituency case. It is no good fobbing us off, as Ministers tried to do yesterday, with references to the Report stage. We shall conduct the battle on Report as well, but in the meantime Wales is entitled to its full share of the Committee stage, and that can happen only if those who are elected by the Welsh people serve on the Committee that will examine the Bill.
It will add offence to injury if the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to gag Welsh hon. Members and prevent them from advancing their points of view in the House. I fear that by his attitude, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will unleash forces in Wales that neither he nor I want to see unleashed. He is encouraging people who have no room for the United Kingdom. He is encouraging a separatist mentality. The House must make sure that the proper rights due to Wales are given to Wales. That is my major indictment of the Secretary of State and the Government for their failure to bring in a Welsh Measure.
There is an incredible story in the Lobbies that the Secretary of State for Wales has no intention of serving on the Committee to defend his own proposals. He can scotch that rumour at once, and I will gladly sit down to give way to him so that he may do so. It will be unbelievable cowardice if he fails to attend the Committee to defend the proposals which are so controversial in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The right hon. and learned Gentleman's silence is answer enough.
I turn to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's complete reversal of his policy in dealing with Glamorgan. In his proposals for the County of South Glamorgan he has abandoned all the accepted principles of local government reform. He no longer even pays lip service to the principle of two-tier government. That has gone by the board in the county of South Glamorgan. When he told us that 40 local authorities had expressed opposition to his proposals for East Glamorgan he was telling us half the truth. What they were doing was supporting the spurious campaign "Keep


Cardiff Capital". The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it was the status of the capital city which people were writing in to support.
The Secretary of State for Wales knows as well as I do that the city is still a district council in his new proposals, which is what he originally proposed. But he has manoeuvred on behalf of his Conservative friends in Cardiff in a shameful way at the expense of efficiency in local government. In February, he completely rejected the proposals he now brings forward as being desirable in the interests of good government. He told us then that to accept those proposals
would further divide the existing county administration";
it would
mean the separation of areas which ought to be administered together for the purposes of town and country planning and transportation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say in the Consultative Document:
Thirdly, to separate Cardiff and its neighbouring areas from either Mid-Glamorgan, or the north-eastern Glamorgan valleys, or from both, would mean the creation of at least one authority which was comparatively weak in terms of rateable resources, and was handicapped by lack of resources and lack of suitable land in seeking solutions to its problems.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke the truth in February. He has created a weak authority in which we have the Rhondda, Aberdare, Merthyr, and Pontypridd—all Labour, we know—and he is making them, with their 500,000 people, one of the poorest authorities in the whole of England and Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): That is not true.

Mr. Thomas: It is true. Powys has the lowest rateable value; the hon. Gentleman will confirm that. The value in the new authority will be just above that of Powys. There will be a rateable value of £27 per head, just over half of what it will be for South Glamorgan. In addition, the greater part of our basic new industries and our valuable new undertakings and institutions are gathered in South Glamorgan. The people who have already suffered badly are the people at whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is hitting in his proposals.
The new South Glamorgan County Council will contain two districts only. Let us examine the logic of what the Secretary of State for Wales proposes. District No. 1 will have four times the population of District No. 2. It will have a rateable value five times that of District No. 2. Does anyone call this an equal amalgamation to balance town and country? Everyone knows that we can prepare for the spread of urban building in the Vale of Glamorgan. The people to whom money is everything—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows who I am talking about because they are on his side—will have their eyes on the development of the Vale of Glamorgan. It has been sacrificed to the political interests of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's friends in Cardiff. Mid-Glamorgan, a county with the largest population and the second lowest rateable value, contains our areas of dereliction.
The Secretary of State for Wales has largely accepted the proposals in the Labour Government's White Paper in respect of other parts of Wales. To the constituency which rejected him at the poll he has given a farewell kick which has caused tremendous hurt and anger in the city of Bangor. He is leading us back to the post, with a multiplicity of planning authorities such as we have not had since before the war.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman assumed office he appeared on television huffing and puffing and telling us that his position as Chairman of the Conservative Party would give him greater influence over his colleagues in the Cabinet. He also told us that he wanted to be judged by results. Seventeen months have elapsed since that foolish request. Wales has judged him by results. We have had fiddled boundaries to suit party interests, diminished status for the Welsh Office, higher rents, higher unemployment and higher costs for everything. Enough is enough. Self-respect should tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that whatever confidence he enjoyed in Wales has gone. We intend to give him the roughest fight of his life over the proposals for Glamorgan. We shall use every Parliamentary means we enjoy to stop the private buccaneering in party interests in which his party is indulging.

7.59 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said that he thought that the Minister had done a very good job in respect of the boundaries of the counties in North-East England. I agree with him in general, but I wish to comment on the Minister's step in taking Whitby urban and rural district from North Yorkshire and putting it in Teesside.
The Minister said yesterday that he had been guided first by tradition. The tradition is that Whitby is a central part of North Yorkshire history. The Cleveland dialect which people speak in North Yorkshire originated in the Whitby district. There is therefore a very close traditional affinity between Whitby and the rest of North Yorkshire.
People may look at the guidelines that the Minister put in his White Paper which, in paragraph 7, says that
boundaries should be drawn so that areas take account of patterns of development and travel".
The Whitby area is separated from the Teesside metropolitan county by a block of moorland which is impassable in winter very frequently, whereas the flow of traffic to the south, because of the Early Warning System, is always kept open; but there is no connection by rail between Teesside and the Whitby area except where it runs through what will be the North Yorkshire county, and that line, the only rail link, is now threatened with closure, according to the local Press last week. This seems to me to be an important factor to bear in mind.
I can see the point if we are adding it to the Teesside metropolitan county area and thinking of putting new industries there, but the Whitby rural district is part of a national park and I am sure that the Minister would not want that national park to be destroyed. He will not get people going 31 miles from Whitby to employment in the Teesside. Therefore, in my view, this is an unreal proposal.
The latter part of that same paragraph 7 says that
services which are closely linked should be in the hands of the same authority.
The whole of the water supply of the district is concentrated at Scarborough,

not Teesside, because the water table goes that way, not to Teesside.
I hope that the Minister will think again on this matter because there is a great deal of local concern about it. The rural district is unanimous against being wrenched from North Yorkshire. There is a division of opinion, I will admit, in the urban districts, but, in my view, the majority of people are strongly against this.
I have only one other point I want to raise, because I know that there are very many hon. and right hon. Members who want to speak. I thought that the Minister for Local Government and Development put it very well at the end of his speech when he talked about functions tinder this Bill and said:
I am sure that one of the achievements which will result from this Measure will be to persuade the public to look on their local councillor as someone who really does govern their lives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 348.]
If this is to be the aim—and I think that, in general, the Minister has carried out that aim very well—greater thought should have been given to whether the enlarged district should not have greater responsibilities for the care of the elderly. I have always found in my political experience that it is a very great error to have the housing authority divorced from those who are providing warden services and welfare hostels. It has meant, I am afraid, that in the provision of housing for the elderly we lag behind, and that would not be so if the services were under the same authority.
All I ask is that I hope that mole attention will be given to this thought. I have always believed that the prime function of a local councillor should be to look after the elderly in his neighbourhood. I know that when we had very small councils and areas of administration were split up, this was not a practicable proposition, but now that we are to have the wider district authority areas I believe that we should make an advance in this matter. It is not to take a party view when I say that I believe that in our social services for the care of the elderly this country lags behind other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will have another thought about


it, to see whether he can give this power to district councils.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: There are obviously, in any Bill such as this, major problems of judgment as between efficiency and the belief that efficiency will be more readily achieved by larger units, and the requirements of democracy. There are some elements in this Bill which I can only welcome, as I do the suggestion, which was contained in the Minister's speech yesterday, of legislation to introduce an ombudsman for local government. As a Member of the Select Committee I hope the Minister will find it possible to consult that Select Committee on the implications and problems involved with that proposal. There is within any question of functional as well as of boundary division an area where a fine judgment has to be made.
It would be unwise of me, as a Member of an alien English constituency, to get involved in the intricate matters of Wales, but as one born within less than 100 yards of where David Lloyd George was born, I would humbly suggest to the Minister that he produces a separate Bill for Wales, including an authorised translation into the Welsh language, and, secondly, a statement as to his beliefs concerning the constitutional propriety of his tacking the Welsh Bill on to the English Measure. If it is in order I will simply use a Welsh phrase, Paid a siarad gwirion: "Do not talk rubbish". There is no case whatsoever for tacking this Bill on to an English Measure. It confuses the English and confounds the Welsh.
With the English in particular there is a total confusion as between the proper requirements of planning given to district councils and the very much more difficult area of allocating and making functions below county level. What this Bill does is to suppose that the species district is homogeneous, whereas, quite clearly, within the species district there is a multiplicity of genera which require different treatment and different functional allocations. One district such as the county district of Cardiff, or of Nottingham, or of Sunderland, requires and demands an area of planning and other functions

which it would be entirely improper to allocate to certain other districts.
To treat a major county borough on the same basis as one treats an agglomeration of rural district councils is to make a nonsense of the reality of the plan-making authority. Within any plan-making authority—there are some 140 of them—there is a series of highly specialised skills. This Bill envisages that instead of 140 plan-making authorities in England and Wales there should be some 430 or 440.
That is a total nonsense. The availability of highly skilled manpower to perform these tasks is already the major bottleneck in planning. To require this multiplicity of planning authorities to spread their thin margarine yet more thinly is an idiocy. Whereas the White Paper suggested that plan-making authorities should be reduced from 140 to 50, under pressure from the major county boroughs the number has been not merely held at 140 but quadrupled. Plan-making authorities are to grow up like mushrooms; every authority that has a district power is to be a plan-making authority.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the matters mentioned by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) or other matters of personal service or planning control in development terms should be taken away from the districts. This is a specific matter of manpower management and planning. The districts have not the staff to contain the work and are unable to provide an adequate career structure or an adequate work load to attract such staff.
I turn to the specific problems of County Durham. Anyone conversant with the details of the management régime within the Durham County Council will accept that its planning department has a management team second to none in this country. That management team consists of 134 professional and technical staff, of whom more than 70 are graduate or graduate-equivalent qualified persons—traffic engineers, soil scientists, ecologists, forestry officials, and so forth.
By splitting the plan-making function between the counties, for the structure, and the local districts, for the local and area scheme plans, although in the latest consultative document allowance is made


for development programme schemes, this highly effective planning team will be broken up. The county will not have the work to keep it in existence and the districts will be unable economically to employ such specialists. The whole of planning in England and Wales marches back 20 years in the allocation of skilled manpower. This is not a matter of democracy but of whether the implementation of democratically taken decisions can be effective.
In the change between the White Paper and the Bill, in the erroneous belief that he is giving greater local authority to the district councils, and in the even more erroneous belief that all district councils are the same, the Minister is going back to the pre-1947 era and, by so doing, damaging planning for a generation. It will be very difficult to turn back from what has been done. These are more general issues, but it would be entirely improper for me not to deal with the specific problems of the North-East.
The most moving event I have ever been to was the laying up in Durham Cathedral of the colours of the Durham Light Infantry when that regiment was wound up. The way in which the people of the City and County of Durham accepted the destruction of a regiment to which they had given their loyalty, and to which many citizens of that county had given their lives, leaves an impression that those who were on Palace Green in Durham on that day will never forget.
As was said by the Minister yesterday, in any reorganisation there must be county boroughs, cities and counties which find themselves reduced. I can think of no other area in England or Wales in which two such counties as Northumberland and Durham, both enormously proud of everything that they have achieved, have been so reduced in status. Despite the changes between the White Paper and the Bill, County Durham, from being a palatinate, the seat of a series of Prince Bishops, becomes a bottle-shaped nonentity with a piece of foreshore, Blackhall Rocks and nothing else. The great industrial rateable values of County Durham are shorn off to create Tyneside and Teesside. If the Minister believes that my constituents in Hetton-le-Hole and Easington Lane are citizens of Tyneside, he shows a marvellous indifference to reality. To those constituents

the reality of Hetton-le-Hole and Easing-ton Lane is far more important than the artifacts of map drawing upon a Ministerial brief. To believe that County Durham is other than the whole geographical area between the River Tyne and the River Tees is to insult every man, woman and child living in that area.
We might be prepared to accept that, albeit reluctantly, if it were within a framework of effective, democratically controlled regional government. In probably no part of England is there such democratic regional feeling as there is in the North-East. The inhabitants are unanimous in the belief that the area twixt Tweed and Tees has a concept of unity such as exists nowhere else. The Bill purposely goes out of its way to break up and destroy that unity. Instead of two great authorities, Durham and Northumberland, with the proud cities of Sunderland and Newcastle and those on Teesside, we are left with an abortion of a scheme that serves neither the local communities nor the region.
I give the Minister clear warning that the people of Durham are reluctant to see their county destroyed, their rateable value more than halved, to satisfy the bureaucratic nonsense of a Bill which does not reflect the basic regional beliefs of the people of the North-East.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I hope hon. Members will remind themselves that there are many others who wish to take part in this debate, and I hope they will give a little consideration to their neighbours.

8.20 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: . Having listened to speeches by Welsh Members on the other side of the House makes me appreciate the difficulties of the Welsh Rugby selectors in satisfying everybody when choosing a Welsh XV. But, just as the heroes in red jerseys rise to the occasion whatever the handicaps, so I believe the people of Wales will rise above the gloomy prophesies of hon. Members opposite on this Bill.
I welcome the Bill since its proposals basically are sound. I also welcome the Government's decision to go ahead because this will end the uncertainty.
I wish to comment on the formation of districts. I believe it is vital to get this


matter right. These are the authorities which will provide the real local government. Originally, the districts were to be of a size which would enable councillors to keep in close personal touch with the citizens—a size of about 40,000 to 60,000 people. As the various documents and White Papers have been issued, the trend seemed to be away from this. I shall give a few quotations to show what I mean.
First of all, the Minister for the Environment when addressing a Conservative local government conference in May last year said:
Again quoting my own constituency the borough of Droitwich with a population of 10,000 to 12,000 people and the Rural District Council of Droitwich they could easily and successful run as one good sensible bottom tier authority.
That is a total of about 26,000 people. I agree that they could undoubtedly be a good bottom tier authority.
Paragraph 34 of the White Paper says:
Where there is a need for the creation of larger units than exist at present, the Government would expect them to have populations ranging upwards from 40,000, save in sparsely populated areas.
A similar remark was made in the Department of Environment Circular 8/71, paragraph 3, which I will not read. Then in May in the debate on the White Paper the Minister said:
Therefore, the range of new districts where we are not conserving existing sizeable cities and towns will be in the 40,000–100,000 bracket"—
so that there is a move in an upward direction—
varying in accordance with the rural nature of the district concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 1286.]
Finally, the guidelines for the Local Government Boundary Commission referred to district councils of the order of 75,000 to 100,000, a very decisive move upwards. I am not quite clear why this should be the case. A population of the order of 75,000 to 100,000 seems to fall between two stools. It is not big enough to have real additional powers but undoubtedly the councillors become more remote. I have a summary of the powers set out by the Minister but it seems to me that the proposals there give very little change of powers to the new bigger districts. There is a slight

increase in planning powers which is counteracted by the removal of certain other powers such as those involving the disposal of refuse.
Although yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development made some play with these additional powers, I still do not believe these have been granted. Certainly my district of Banstead, which has a population of about 45,000, has practically all the powers proposed and effectively exercises them.
The essence of two-tier Government is not only to ensure that there are adequate resources available in discharging major responsibilities such as education but the second tier—in other words, the districts—must be small enough for the councillors to be closely in touch with the people they represent.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department have a very fine record in bowing to the wishes of the local people in many areas of policy. When the Government consider the districts after the Boundary Commission has reported, and we are promised a debate, I hope he will bear in mind paragraph 13 of the White Paper, which says:
The Government obviously must seek efficiency, but where the arguments are evenly balanced their judgment will be given in favour of responsibility being exercised at the more local level.
I wish to make a few brief remarks about the guidelines. It is suggested in paragraph 2 that the districts should be broadly comparable in population. That seems to be in conflict with paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which says
… the districts are bound to vary considerably in size and resources …".

I am sure the Minister will not take the view that the bigger is the better. I would say that districts are bound to vary in size and resources. The key paragraph in the guidelines is paragraph 6, which says, addressing the Boundary Commission:
Among other things they should have particular regard to the wishes of the local inhabitants, the pattern of community life, and the effective operation of local government services.
It seems to me that that is the key paragraph. It is most important. Above all, when we come to draw these lines,


we must not pretend that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best.
Secondly, there is no mention in the guidelines of topographical features being considered when areas are being delineated. In some cases, these are very important.
Thirdly, I ask my right hon. Friend to take scrupulous care in the selection of people to serve on the Boundary Commission. Theirs will be a very difficult job. It is essential that they have everyone's confidence.
I have great faith that my right hon. Friend will do all that he has said he will do. I am sure that he will pay special regard to the wishes of local people. If he does, I believe that this legislation will be a success, and I shall be glad to support it.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that I shall be forgiven if some of the sweeping statements that I make are not well supported. In order to be brief, and in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak, it will not be possible for me to substantiate many of the remarks that I make.
In my view, the Bill is hasty and ill-considered. I support that remark by quoting two of the arrangements proposed. I notice that the metropolitan districts are to be regarded as health authorities. At the same time, we find that it is the counties which are to be the food and drugs authorities. This is an absurd arrangement, since health authorities should carry out the food and drugs responsibilities of local government.
A further interest in the metropolitan districts lies in the fact that, especially in my area of South Yorkshire, the situation is such that the metropolitan district of Rotherham, for example, will have highways responsibility for the maintenance of private roads and nothing else. This means that the metropolitan district authorities will have very little to offer experienced and skilled men to serve in the relevant department. In due course, we may find that we lack the capacity to maintain minor roads properly because well-qualified people do not wish to seek employment in that department of the district council.
The main burden of my remarks must be concerned with the point that the Secretary of State made about the importance of grass-roots democracy. We have the concession that parish councils will continue to exist. I am delighted to see that because I am conscious of the very good work carried out by the hundreds of parish councils in Britain and the 23 in my own constituency. They play a vital part in community life. They lead the activities of local communities. I am delighted that they are to continue.
However, there are several urban district councils which are no greater than the larger parish councils, and they may find themselves disappearing. The community leadership that they are able to give today will disappear with them. This will be a real loss. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position of urban districts in the metropolitan areas of England so that they can perform those community responsibilities which are to be allowed in Wales.
The greatest anxiety of all in my area is concerned with education. People feel that the rateable values in many of the metropolitan districts will not be sufficient to maintain a satisfactory education service. This is certainly an anxiety felt by many of my constituents. When the White Paper was published, we were told that we need not worry about this because the Green Paper would provide the answers. The Green Paper came as an appalling disappointment to South Yorkshire. It left us with the continuing worry about whether we could provide an adequate education service.
In my area, anxiety grew considerably. Teachers, parents and others interested in the community drew up a petition containing 25,000 signatures. That represents a third of the adult population of the Rother Valley education area. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to receive a deputation from the leaders of the campaign in order to hear their views and assuage their anxieties. The deputation was not a lightweight one. It consisted of the headmasters of two large comprehensive schools, two members of the divisional education executive, both experienced councillors and one a former chairman of the A.E.C., an experienced divisional


education officer, and a local doctor representing the parents.
Neither the Secretary of State for Education and Science nor the Secretary of State for the Environment would receive that deputation, and its members were left standing on the pavement in Whitehall. When I heard the Secretary of State say yesterday that one of the approaches that he had adopted was in an effort to avoid resentment, I felt astonished. The resentment which he and his right hon. Friend created in my area will take a long time to live down, and even a concession on urban district councils will do little to assuage it.
We need desperately an assurance that there will be sufficient financial resources provided to enable the poorer metropolitan areas to maintain a splendid education service and to continue to cope and to compete with the wealthier areas of Britain.
I share the views of my colleagues from Wales in that I regret the little time which is available for hon. Members from England as well as from Wales. The Bill ought not to have been put before us in this way so that we have to gabble out our views in a most unseemly manner. It should have been separated, and matters concerned with principal functions and Clauses 1 and 21 ought to be considered in a Committee of the whole House. It is an insult. It is an insult not merely to Wales but to England; and, what is more, it offers considerable future danger to the children of both countries.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: This is a Bill the general principles and objectives of which I approve. The reform of local government is urgent. It has been talked about for too long, and uncertainty should be ended. I therefore welcome the Bill, though there is a part of it with which I profoundly disagree and there are many sections where it can be improved.
There are a number of general questions which I should like answered. First, there are the differences of function between the Welsh and the English sections of the Bill. The reasons in some cases remain obscure. I hope that we shall have from the Government some clearer

explanation than we have yet received and that, better still, some of the anomalies may be removed in Committee.
I turn to a matter which was referred to by several hon. Members yesterday. In Wales an existing borough is to be allowed immediately to become a community and retain its name, so that the smallest towns will keep some status. In England they are apparently to be wiped out, although later they may, at the mercy of district councils, be recreated as parishes. The elimination of small but proud towns with names which are part of history is not only tragic but totally unnecessary.
This leads me to inquire about two points. First, what is to happen to those towns with ancient rights, privileges and customs, but no existing local government functions, which were allowed to continue to exercise those rights under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1883? I cite the town of Newport in my constituency where the mayor, aldermen and burgesses are appointed in a manner which has continued unaltered for more than 700 years. I attended the mayor-making ceremony last week. The town rightly takes pride in its privileges, which help to cement and strengthen community life. There are many like it. I see no mention in the Bill of repeal of the 1883 Act, but Clauses 3 and 23 provide only for new districts to pray for the grant of charters. If I receive no reassurance on this point, I shall certainly seek to put down an Amendment in Committee.
But I would go further. It seems to me that if in 1883 it was possible to allow towns which had lost their municipal functions yet to retain their ancient privileges and customs, the same could be done today. I hope that it will be.
There is one particular matter which concerns Wales on which I seek the guidance of the Minister who is to reply. I refer to the fate of the Welsh Church Fund. This is a charity and is, therefore, probably covered by Clause 202. But, if I understand the position correctly, it will mean that the funds, for example, administered by the County of Pembroke will, if the Bill goes through unchanged, become the responsibility of the new County of Dyfed. The amounts involved vary greatly from county to county, and it would be very much resented if moneys were to be distributed in areas far from


the parishes which originally provided them.
The crucial issue for me and for my constituents, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows well, is the very existence of the County of Pembroke itself and its merger with Cardigan and Carmarthen. I will not repeat the arguments advanced in detail in the Welsh Grand Committee or those that were so clearly put by the county council in the paper which it submitted to the Government. They are very largely the arguments advanced yesterday by my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) about their own areas, which suggests that we are concerned with general principles and not just with a particular constituency problem.
I regret that the Secretary of State has so summarily dismissed the case, and I believe that we are entitled to a better explanation than we have received so far. He has based his case on what the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) referred to as a "figural fixation", an "unreal criterio"—a minimum population of 250,000, a concept that, even in terms of efficiency, has no meaning at all in isolation from the other factors, social, geographic and economic. All the arguments we have advanced have been based on the acceptance of a belief in a desirable minimum—250,000 if that be it. What we have sought to show is that in this case, as in others, the disadvantages inherent in the grouping necessary to produce such a population are far greater than any advantages that could be gained by achieving the objective. It is these specific arguments which should have been answered, because the Government stated, in their circular to Welsh local authorities on 4th January, that:
in areas of sparse population or for other geographic reasons it may be necessary to accept a lower figure".
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State observed this afternoon that the areas must be reasonably practical. We cannot adhere, he said, rigidly to these criteria.
In the English White Paper, the Government have said that local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest—through living in a recognisable community,

through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition. We have presented a detailed case which establishes beyond doubt that those objectives cannot be met by the Government's proposals; that the community of interests which the Government have stated to be essential in East Glamorgan cannot be established here.
We have elaborated on the immense practical, social and educational problems which the proposals will create. We have shown why the exceptional geographic and economic position of Pembrokeshire, which has at its centre the great oil port and growth point of Milford Haven—and which will have, as a result, a rising population and about the highest rateable value per head of any local authority in Wales—gives it the capacity and capability to provide a standard of local government that will compare favourably with any other part of the Principality. None of these detailed arguments has been refuted. All we are told is that it would create an awkward precedent and leave an unacceptably weak new county in Cardigan and Carmarthen. That new county would be as strong as Gwynedd and twice as strong as Powys.
The Secretary of State, in his summary of local government observations and his comments, observes that Gwynedd's population is only marginally below 250,000. The population of Cardigan and Carmarthen differs by only 3,000 from that of Gwynedd, so if one will do so will the other.
The Secretary of State is wrong if he thinks that by giving us two districts instead of one he will have calmed our hostility. That was something that most of the district authorities favoured, though many in the county disagree.
On the matter of the top-tier authority, there is complete unity. We stand together—the local authorities, the parties and the people—in believing that the solution which the Secretary of State has borrowed from his predecessor is wrong. On that point five political candidates at the last election fought as one. Nothing that has happened since has made me changes my mind or altered my conviction that the plan must be changed.
That is why, favouring the Bill as a whole although profoundly disagreeing with a part of it, I shall vote for its


Second Reading but seek to amend it in Committee, and I shall welcome the support of political friend and foe alike, whatever their notives may be, in destroying this monster dyfed.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The nature of this debate illustrates the great difficulty into which the Government got themselves. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) has spoken of the Welsh aspects of this Bill and I aim to concentrate on the "Bill within a Bill." The four speakers preceding the hon. Member spoke on the English aspects and the two Front Bench spokesmen dealt with the Welsh aspects. This is an impossible situation for which the Government must take the fullest responsibility.
In Wales our attitude towards local government is different from that which is held in England and this is reflected in the fact that the plans for Wales are different. We are to change counties, six of which had their boundaries fixed in 1284. The remaining seven had their boundaries fixed in 1542. This is therefore a major constitutional change for Wales. It is a matter which excites interest among Welsh Members, not only about the boundaries but about the functions.
Yet what is to happen? This Bill will be sent to a Committee on which there will be a small minority of Welsh Members who have no interest, probably, in the English part of the Bill. There will be a majority of English Members who will find it very irksome to listen to long speeches from Welsh Members.
Why has that happened? It is because the Government have deliberately chosen to put the two Bills into one and to avoid a real debate. The truth is that there will not be an adequate debate on either the English or the Welsh parts of the Bill when it goes into Committee. This is entirely reprehensible and I join with those who criticise the Government for not bringing in a separate Bill. They are playing into the hands of those extremists in Wales who argue that we do not have fair play in this House. The Government have provided them with

a ready made argument to support this view.

Mr. Alan Williams: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say, on behalf of the Liberal Party, what he thinks of the suggestion that the Secretary of State is not even to be a member of the Committee, but a runaway general, who runs away when the first shot is fired?

Mr. Hooson: I am astounded if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not to be a member of the Committee. Taking full responsibility for the Bill, he should be there. Maybe he does not want to listen to the English section. In local government reform we in Wales have suffered from two "Doubting Thomases" over the last few years. One has taken faltering steps towards a Bill which was never produced. Year after year we used to ask him whether he would delay consideration until the Crowther Commission reported and he said that he would brook no delay, the Bill would be brought forward. He was still waiting when the Labour Government came to an end. Now he has been replaced by another "Doubting Thomas" who has brought forward a Bill which is incorporated and taken over by another Bill, and that is not good enough.
It was a major mistake of the Government not to wait for the Crowther Commission's report. It is no use saying that it is possible to distinguish between local and national government as though they are in watertight compartments. What we are concerned with is government, how the people of this country are governed. Functions may be transferred from the Government to local government and vice versa, but the whole problem is that of government. The Crowther Commission is concerned with government, just as was the local government Commission. To miss this opportunity to consider the reform of the whole of local government in the light of the proposals of the Crowther Commission seems an act of immense stupidity.
I do not share the views of many Labour Members about unitary authorities of the size they have suggested, and here I confine my comments to Wales. There is a good case for saying that an


elected council for Wales, a domestic Parliament for Wales, whatever it was, could take over major regional responsibilities. That would be a large authority and we could have unitary authorities on a smaller scale to deal with other matters. This would have been a feasible way in which to reform local government in Wales, but we have lost the opportunity to discuss it.
I cannot believe that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today, that we had to proceed now because officials in local government had been left in a state of uncertainty for so long that that uncertainty must be resolved, was completely serious. I am sorry for those officials, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that his concern that their uncertainty should be brought to an end is more important than getting the right solution for Wales for the next half century? The two arguments are not on the same level.
If we had waited until we had had proposals from the Crowther Commission, they could have been the background to the debate. However sorry we may be for local government officials, their difficulty could have been and should have been put right by compensation, and concern for them is a poor reason for bringing forward this legislation at this time. Having waited for seven years since 1964, delaying for another year could not have made all that difference.
I strongly agreed with the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) who, in a very thoughtful and excellent speech last night, spoke of the need to consider local government reform in terms of people having a sense of community—those are not his words, but that is their implication. I am in my tenth year as a Member of Parliament and it is of great interest to me that in my day in my part of the country there has never been a general election, nor an election for the county council, nor an election for the local borough council, when the turnout has been less than 80 per cent. of the voters. We have an interest in representative government, and it shows a sense of community.
The Government are in danger of destroying the sense of community where it exists and of failing to recreate it in a broader sense. In Wales the all-import-

ant consideration is local government finance, and we have to get that into its right perspective. Over the last 10 years, only one local government unit in Wales has been viable on its rates alone, and that has been Flintshire, which has normally not been dependent on Exchequer grants. It is no use talking about the immense wealth of Glamorgan in relation to population when Flintshire is the only viable Welsh county. When talking of reforming local government, we cannot by any kind of juxtaposition put together economically viable districts if they have to depend on being financed through the rates, and all the new Welsh communities will probably therefore depend, as in the past, on Exchequer grants.
I come from a county which is heavily dependent on Exchequer grants, and that does not seem to me to have held up our education programme, for example, because we are ahead of nearly all the rest of Wales in the establishment of purpose-built schools and so on. We should concentrate, therefore, on getting units of local government which are right in that they have a sense of community. That sense of community is possible at different levels. There can be a sense of community as Britain, as Wales, as a county, as a borough, as a parish. It depends on the scale and on what common feelings there are.
Where I think the Government have failed is in getting mixed up with local government finance. Finance should have been dealt with in the Bill. We should have been able to consider how local government is to be financed for the next couple of decades. We should have reformed local government with this question of finance clearly in mind.
Let me illustrate that from the point of view of Montgomeryshire, the country which I represent. We have been put together with Radnorshire and Breconshire. These are three agricultural counties, but there is no real sense of community between them, as I am sure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) would agree. The farmers of Breconshire and Montgomeryshire never visit the markets in Radnorshire, and the farmers of Radnorshire very seldom visit markets in the other two counties. There is no real sense of


community there. Often in history there has been an enlarged Powys, but it has never included Brecon and Radnor. We are flying in the face of history, and going against the routes of the railways, roads, and so on, in putting them together. Had the Government decided to make a county of the whole of Mid-Wales, there would then have been a sense of community of a kind that will not exist in Powys.
Let me illustrate that further by referring to Glamorganshire. I agree with the Secretary of State that there should be three counties of Glamorganshire. I was not as greatly impressed by the Cardiff case as I was by the case made by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough for a third county. I think that it would have been wrong in the set-up in Wales to have had one county with a population of nearly one million which would have been able to dominate all the other counties in discussions, and so on. What have the valleys and Cardiff in common? The answer is, very little. None of them is economically viable. Certainly Cardiff is not an economically viable unit as such, even with the hinterland around it.
When a suggestion is put forward for the amalgamation of areas to create three counties in the Glamorgan area, one is not confined to thinking of Cardiff on one side, and the valleys on the other. I think that if the Merthyr view were accepted, and all the valleys were put together in a Heads of the Valley Authority, and the coastal strip were put with Cardiff—it has more in common with Cardiff than with the valleys—a greater sense of community would evolve in the area.
The fact that the rateable value would be low does not seem to enter into it. Does it matter that the subsidy is to be £1½ million, as opposed to £1 million, or whatever the figure is?

Mr. Alec Jones: I appreciate part of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying about viability. Surely one must take note of the view expressed by the Government in their Green Paper on local government finance that local government cannot continue to expect the same level of Government grant in the future as it received in the past?

Mr. Hooson: I do not care what is said in the Green Paper. People will not stand for any great change. There is bound to be a considerable Exchequer grant for many of the community services administered by local government.
I should like to draw attention to one matter which I consider to be dangerous from the point of view of Wales, and that is the provision about altering boundaries between England and Wales by agreement between counties. It seems to me that there would be uproar in Wales if the new Denbighshire, to be called Clwyd, were to rearrange its boundaries with Cheshire and Shorpshire without reference to the rest of Wales. I do not think that this is a matter which should be left to the counties to consider. I do not think that this provision should be in the Bill.
There are many other detailed comments which I should like to make on the Bill, but which I shall probably not have the opportunity of doing because of the path which the Government have chosen. I should like the Secretary of State to reconsider the proposal for the election every three or four years of new members to the county council. If that happens, there will be no sense of continuity. The proposal seems to be wrong. When part of a county council is made up of aldermen there is always a degree of continuity, whatever the demerits of the system. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that every four years there should be a complete change of councillors, it is not a sensible suggestion. It would be much more sensible for one-quarter of the council to retire every year or one-half to retire every two years, as with the district councils, because that would provide a sense of continuity.
I had intended to make many more points, but there is no time for me to make them now. I am very disappointed with the Bill. There is not much point in my dealing now with the Government's proposals as regards boundaries, save that I ask the Government to keep an open mind on some of the matters I have raised. Many of the powers should be different. It would be a great mistake to rush the Bill through a small Standing Committee and then to bring it back to the House for a couple of days on Report. This is not the way to deal with such a major reform as this.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: As a Salopian I am reluctant to intervene in what appears to be a Welsh debate, and even more so because I represent a Hampshire constituency. I shall be very brief. I shall make only three points and then sit down and allow another Welshman to take part in the debate.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his wisdom in allowing the constituency of Aldershot and North-East Hampshire to remain within Hampshire as opposed to moving over into Surrey as proposed in the White Paper. Opinion in my constituency was virtually unanimous that there should be no change. I am glad that this has been the result.
Aldershot itself is only a small part of my constituency of Aldershot and North-East Hampshire. Aldershot itself believes that there is a strong case for Ash and Tongham to be included within Hampshire, because Ash, which is at the moment in Surrey, is virtually a suburb of Aldershot and makes use of all the Aldershot local authority facilities.
More important, Ash includes three housing estates with almost 700 Aldershot houses within Ash itself. Because of the existence of a large expanse of Army land around Aldershot which restricts development, Aldershot has had to move outside its boundaries to provide housing for its people. We have 700 houses in Ash. Aldershot needs lebensraum. If it is to find living room of any kind, the logical solution is that the small area of Ash, which is virtually a suburb of Aldershot, should be removed from Surrey and included in the Aldershot district.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I must make it plain to my hon. Friend that he must restrain his territorial ambitions on my constituency. If he wishes to pursue this argument, he might as well accept that it is no use his trying to eat his cake and have it and that he will be most strenuously opposed by the people of Ash and by myself.

Mr. Critchley: I respect my hon. Friend's views. His intervention is not altogether unexpected. No doubt he saw my name appear as if by magic on the television screen and then decided to intervene in this debate. None the less, I am making a serious point. I again emphasise that 700 local authority houses owned

by Aldershot are already in Ash. If we are to provide more houses, as we wish to do, we must find land somewhere. Because Army land surrounds Aldershot, it is important that we at least consider whether the small district of Ash ought not to be removed from Surrey and added to Hampshire. This is a not unreasonable suggestion, which on reflection may well appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Onslow: —but, since this small area with a population of about 15,000—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. May I understand what the position is? Did the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) give way to his hon. Friend?

Mr. Critchley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Onslow: I have no wish to detain the House, but I must tell my hon. Friend that there are about 15,000 people living in that small area. If he wishes to expand, let him seek to do so elsewhere.

Mr. Critchley: I should be very happy were we able to expand elsewhere, but the problem of army land is difficult of solution. Ash, as many hon. Members know, is really a suburb of Aldershot. At first sight, there is no difference whatever between Aldershot and Ash. However, I leave that matter there now.
Aldershot is unique at present in that it has military members on the council. In a sense, we may be said to be like Oxford and Cambridge, though they have dons and we have soldiers on the council. It is the view of the Aldershot local authority and of the Army that, whatever happens regarding the second tier and the reorganisation at the district level within my constituency, the size of the military investment in Andershot requires that military membership on the council should be a feature of the new second tier arrangements.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) will understand if I do not take up his


argument, for in the short time available to me I wish to concentrate on the most controversial part of the Bill related to Wales, namely, the proposals regarding the County of Glamorgan.
I add my protest to those already made at the way this debate is being rushed through, without adequate time for our interests to be expressed. I agree with one remark of the Secretary of State. He said that discussion of local government in Wales has been going on for a very long time. This is undeniable. Nowhere in the country has the demand for reform been more insistent than it has been in the Principality.
We have had our Royal Commissions, our reports of one kind and another, our draft proposals, and we have had many debates in the Welsh Grand Committee. I shall not take time by enumerating all the White Papers. In the light of all this activity, there was every justification—I do not apologise for returning to the point—for the Welsh people to expect a separate Bill dealing with the special problems of Wales. The Secretary of State's answer to that call today failed to convince the House. The Government's refusal to introduce a separate Bill has not only caused deep resentment among the Welsh people but it has damaged respect for the Welsh Office itself.
I readily acknowledge that most matters coming before the House affect equally the life of England and of Wales, and they are dealt with accordingly. But there are occasions, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pointed out—this Bill is one example—when proposals are made of particular significance for the life of Wales alone. In these circumstances, the constitutional procedure of the House should have been invoked, and this, being a matter of special interest to Wales, should have been referred to a Committee of Welsh Members. The Government have missed an opportunity to show by a positive action that they respect the Welsh as a nation.
For some time now throughout Wales, both within and without local government, there has been widespread agreement that the time was ripe for a bold and comprehensive overhaul—not for any destructive reform but for a thorough

overhaul. There has never been the slightest suggestion by any Commission or in any draft proposals that local government reform in Wales necessitated the sheer destruction of the County of Glamorgan, as is proposed in the Bill. Some have referred to it as a massacre. In my view, this is an example of reform at its worst.
I readily declare my interest. I am a Glamorgan man and I am a past member of the Glamorgan County Council. There are very few people in Wales today who honestly believe that Glamorgan deserves to be carved up. Why break up Glamorgan, which is widely acknowledged to be one of the most efficient local government administrations in the country, with a particularly proud record in education and cultural activities, a record second to none?
For example, its service to young people through the Glamorgan Youth Orchestra is well known. The orchestra is the very backbone of the National Youth Orchestra of Wales. Its help to the Welsh Agricultural College, Coleg Harlech, and the Welsh National Opera Company has been outstanding. And it has committed itself to a capital improvement programme of £4½ million at Rhoose Airport, which serves all the regions.
The Royal Commission Report as far back as 1962 said:
We have no major proposals to make for the County of Glamorgan. We base our decision on our view of the generally high quality of the services provided by the County.
The Secretary of State said on page 9 of his own consultative document, referring to Glamorgan:
It is one of the greatest concentrations of industry in the United Kingdom, and it has a proud tradition of democratic local government.
Why, then, should Glamorgan as we have known it be destroyed? That is the most controversial issue in the proposals.
It is noteworthy that the Glamorgan County Council, in the spirit of reform, had earlier proposed the creation of an administrative county to coincide with the geographical unit. The Secretary of State rejected that proposal on the ground that the division of the geographical unit was desirable in the interests of the good


local government of the whole area. I challenge that conclusion, in the light of Glamorgan's outstanding record, and in support of what I say I would refer to Redcliffe-Maud's tenth general principle, set out on page 5 of the short version of its report:
The new local government pattern should so far as practicable stem from the existing one. Wherever the case for change is in doubt, the common interests, traditions and the loyalties inherent in the present pattern, and the strength of existing services as going concerns, should be respected.
In the light of that recommendation, I have not the slightest doubt that a geographical Glamorgan, with its common interests, traditions and loyalties, would be far more efficient from the point of view of local government than the present proposals.
As for the criticism that the geographical Glamorgan would embody two county councils, Cardiff and Swansea, I remind the Secretary of State of the example of Hampshire, which embodies the two county councils of Portsmouth and Southampton.
When he produced his consultative document in February, the right hon. Gentleman proposed dividing Glamorgan into two counties—East and West. Tonight we are confronted with not two but three county councils. Yet this very proposal is quite contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's own opinion as expressed in paragraph 43 of his consultative document. I will not take the time to quote much of it, but it is clear that it is contrary to the present proposal. It said:
Thirdly, to separate Cardiff and its neighbouring areas from either Mid-Glamorgan, or the north-eastern Glamorgan valleys, or from both, would mean the creation of at least one authority which was comparatively weak in terms of rateable resources, and was handicapped by lack of resources and lack of suitable land in seeking solutions to its problems.
That leads to the logical conclusion that either the Secretary of State has deliberately ignored the principles he laid down or some other considerations have motivated his decisions. Our suspicions are strengthened when we realise that the creation of South Glamorgan as a third county was advocated by the Cardiff City Council during its campaign to keep Cardiff a capital city. It also laid great emphasis on the development needs of the city, and was obviously advocating the

expansion of Cardiff rather than the real reform of local government.
We find that in South Glamorgan there will be only two districts, No. 1, embodying Cardiff, being four times the size of District No. 2 in population and five times greater in rateable value. There can be little doubt that District No. 2 comprising the Vale of Glamorgan has been sacrificed to the furtherance of Cardiff's ambitions. This means that Cardiff will completely dominate this new South Glamorgan county, and the chances of District No. 2 having an effective voice are very remote indeed.
This ignores the basic principle advocated by Maud regarding common interests and traditions, which I quoted earlier. The common interests, traditions and inherent loyalties of Cardiff are linked with the valleys of the wider Glamorgan which built up its strength and power.
Apart from Cardiff City Council itself, the vast majority of the people in Wales are against it. I will not again quote the words of a Conservative county councillor who has spoken out against this matter. Instead, I quote from the Western Mail, which is certainly more partial to hon. Gentlemen opposite than to my hon. Friends. It wrote:
The lack of overall logic and fairness in the new proposals would greatly harm the valley areas. The creation of a small county dominated by Cardiff is surely likely to promote isolationism rather than the wider outlook of a capital.
The County Councils Association is opposed to this step. The South Wales Rural District Councils Association has declared its opposition as well.
I therefore submit that there is overwhelming evidence of opposition to this proposal. The creation of this new South Glamorgan county is not only a denial of the basic Redcliffe-Maud principles but is a denial of the real concept of local government reform advocated by the Secretary of State himself in paragraph 43 of the consultative document.
I must mention a constituency interest, with particular reference to the West Glamorgan new county and the proposed amalgamation of the whole of the Gower rural area with the City of Swansea in District No. 1, regarding which there is certainly not unanimous opinion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) has


drawn attention to a letter to the Secretary of State from the town clerk of Swansea. In it he said, among other things—as my hon. Friend quoted the letter in greater detail I will quote only one part of it:
On the basis of the reforms proposed in the Consultative Document, my Council take the view that the new District 1 of the West Glamorgan county should be confined to the area of the existing county borough.
I acknowledge that there has been a demand for the whole of the Gower rural area to be kept as one unit rather than be split up as previously proposed. I recognise, too, the connection between some of the Gower areas which are on the fringes of Swansea and the city. But as for the whole of the Gower Peninsula—extending deep down into the countryside for many miles, and the surrounding coastline—this area is particularly rural and has a much closer connection and much closer interests with the neighbouring rural, urban and parish authorities.
There is still strong opinion that the whole of the Gower rural area should be amalgamated with its neighbouring communities as originally proposed in 1967, thus making District No. 2 a viable and worthwhile unit.
Instead, we find that Swansea is given the green pastures of the Gower rural area, and the Secretary of State has not removed the suspicions that surround his motives in bringing forward these proposals.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: There is general agreement that change is necessary but even greater agreement that the areas best suited to this change are probably not those we represent. This is extremely understandable when one sees the manner in which some of our large towns are being treated under the Bill.
Towns which have over the years earned great credit for themselves—and those, such as my constituency, in recent years—their councillors, officers and staffs having worked hard to make them totally viable units, suddenly find themselves plunged back into areas almost identical with those out of which they came. Also, they now find that they have to petition to retain the title of "borough". I ask the Minister to con-

sider that they might retain this title without having to petition once again.
The Secretary of State rightly said that he wished to avoid remoteness. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) pointed out, the representatives of four or five large towns or cities will have to travel long distances in order to meet on the county authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said that the distance for her representatives would be 42 miles. Luton's representatives will have to go only 20 miles, but there are only three areas in the country whose representatives will have to travel further. This is totally wrong.
Where this situation exists, the very least which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can do is to ensure that suitable headquarters are provided at a central point so that the complaint about remoteness may be removed. But this is not enough because towns with populations of over 150,000 have special problems which have been recognised, although there is not universal agreement over the metropolitan districts. But seven or eight former county boroughs with special problems which have not been recognised are likely to lose their status.
The Secretary of State has rightly said that responsibility for housing should be close to the people and should go to the districts. But we cannot remove responsibility for the social services from them because many of the problems which go to the social service departments stem from housing difficulties, and it is the large towns which often attract people to them which have long waiting lists and as a result they have many problems which take up the time of those administering the social services. The large towns have a high immigration rate, long housing lists, probably a fair amount of delinquency, large demands for educational welfare, all backed by a large amount of voluntary effort. In these large towns it is almost impossible to separate housing, social services, amenities and education because one is dependent upon the other; they are interlinked.
The Secretary of State pointed out yesterday that he has given powers to towns which have sufficient resources. All the towns with populations of over


150,000 which are excluded from being metropolitan districts can show clearly that they have these resources and they will not lose them. I do not suggest that we should not raise the standards of surrounding districts to those of the best, but do not let us dilute the expertise in and the quality al those towns which have proved their worth. There would be great danger in doing that.
I wish to raise two small points. First, there is no mention in the Bill about who will be responsible for the airports. Who will be responsible for Luton Airport? Who will be responsible for the Manchester Airport in a metropolitan area? I hope that this point will be cleared up.
Secondly, there is a strong feeling among magistrates' courts committees that they will be disbanded and that they will have one representative who will have to travel up to 40 miles in order to put the problems of the magistrates' courts. I ask the Secretary of State to take steps to retain these committees so that those on the spot can best deal with the local problems.
We must maintain standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said, there is power in Clause 100 to delegate responsibility, but the main point which he made, with which I totally agree, was that this is a hotbed for discontent, jealousy and bickering.
There is a simple and, I believe, a right solution to this problem, and it is that those towns—and there are very few of them; they number six or eight—with populations of over 150,000 today, which would be the right towns to have this sort of delegation, should have social services and education delegated by Statute. This would ensure that standards are maintained, and it would obviate the bickering which many hon. Members on both sides have so clearly seen.
There is, of course, a real answer to my point and one or two others, and this is that we have insufficient counties. There is a common perimeter to Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire which all the previous proposals put forward, other than in this Bill—those which were put forward by N.A.L.G.O. and my own association in Luton—suggested should be divided into four

counties. The present Bill divides them into three. This I believe to be a fundamental weakness because it does not recognise the growth of Milton Keynes, which will be a very large town in the north; and it does not overcome the remoteness caused by the non-man's land of mid-Bedfordshire. Proposals for this fourth county have been put forward. The only reason I have been given why it should not be accepted has been on account of local authority opinion. This is the very last reason which I think should be accepted, with all respect to local authority opinion. If the proposal had been turned down on grounds of good planning I would have accepted that, but a few local people ganging up and saying that they do not want it seems to me no answer at all, and I hope the Secretary of State will look at this again.
I think large towns have been forgotten, and I hope that the Secretary of State will look once more to see that they are relevant, because we do not want to have to remind him later in the day rather more forcefully.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I should like to add my protest to those already expressed that this is two Bills in one. It is absolutely disgraceful to produce it in this way. It is also disgraceful that a Measure of this size and constitutional importance is not to be dealt with in Committee of the whole House. The third insult to English Members is that in the last two hours there has not been an English Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench.
I want to say something about boundaries; I want to say something about metropolitan areas; and I want to say something about the setting up of the Boundaries Commission and its decision and advice on new district councils.
I am sorry that I have to gabble my speech, but, unfortunately, I have to do so because there are many hon. Members who still want to speak.
I want to say something first of all particularly about my own county, Derbyshire. It is an absolute disaster that the Government have not listened to the protests coming from Derbyshire at the fact that Dronfield urban district and the


rural parishes of Eckington and Killamarsh are being taken into the new South Yorkshire metropolitan area. The House will recall that in 1967 a huge chunk of north Derbyshire, of some 5,000 acres and a population of 33,000, was taken over by Sheffield to solve that city's overspill housing problems. All the evidence so far advanced shows that this further encroachment is completely unnecessary. Certainly, so far as south Yorkshire is concerned, not a single member of that authority has said that that particular area of Derbyshire should go there. It is not required for housing overspill or for industrial development. A glance at the map will prove that there is no continuous development into that part of Derbyshire. In fact, there is a natural green belt.
If one consults the Minister's own White Paper, particularly paragraphs 29 and 32, one sees that the outlines there set out have been ignored, and the people of Derbyshire know it and they resent it. The fact has already been mentioned that there have been referenda in those parts of Derbyshire. The referendum in Eckington showed that about 95 per cent. of those voting wanted to stay in Derbyshire. Similarly, in Killamarsh more than 90 per cent. wanted to stay in Derbyshire. There were very high polls in both cases. We have travelled this road before; 5,000 acres and 33,000 people have been transferred. Sheffield does not want this area, and the Government have no proposals for it. The Derbyshire County Council wants to keep it, or at least we think so. Although there is a Conservative County Council in Derbyshire, no one representing Conservative opinion has bothered to come to the debate.
In February when the Government originally put forward their plans for new counties they proposed to take 40,000 people from the north-west of the county and put them into Greater Manchester and to take 33,000 people from the south-east and put them into Nottinghamshire. On the publication of the Bill, we found that those two proposals had been dropped, but 39,000 people were still to be taken into the South Yorkshire metropolitan area. There is no justification for this, and the Minister knows it.
I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr.

Swain), and by other hon. Members who attended the Minister's meeting in Sheffield, that the Sheffield City Council makes no claim to this area, and has made it plain that it has no proposals and is satisfied with the portion of Derbyshire that was transferred in 1967. If South Yorkshire does not need the area, if the Derbyshire people want to keep it and if the people directly affected do not want the transfer, there is no possible justification for taking the area into South Yorkshire.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should welcome further debate on this. This matter needs further debate, and I hope that we shall have it in Committee.

Mr. Varley: I am most grateful to the Minister for his assurance.
I will say a word on the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission which is to set up district councils. Already local authorities have been asked to look at their districts and to make recommendations to the Boundary Commission, which in turn will make recommendations to the Minister. Derbyshire County Council, with its large resources, was first in the field. It has produced an expensive, glossy, gimmicky document which carves up the Derbyshire area in a disgraceful way. I hope that in the terms of reference to the Boundary Commission the Minister will stick by paragraph 13 of Circular 8/71, in which he said:
In preparing their recommendations the Boundary Commission would take account of local proposals".
If "local proposals" means anything in this context, it means the proposals of the borough and district councils and not necessarily those of the remote county councils.
I hope that the Government will not think of the Derbyshire County Council as speaking for the county on this. It does not, as has been demonstrated. County conferences in Derbyshire have shown time and again that rural district councils, urban district councils and borough councils are opposed to the county council proposals. The people in Derbyshire were enraged by them, and the Derbyshire Times talked of national considerations coming a bad second to


party politics, and made suggestions of gerrymandering.
The best quotation I can make on this point is from the leader of the Tory-controlled Chesterfield Borough Council who resigned his post after 16 years to fight these proposals. He said recently
I did what I passionately believed to be hest for Chesterfield. I am a Chesterfieldian first and a Tory second.
So even a Tory alderman with some 16 years' standing cannot stomach the Derbyshire County Council proposals.
I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking to reconsider whether this area of North-East Derbyshire should go into the South Yorkshire metropolitan area. I hope that when the Boundary Commission is set up it will be told that it is the local authorities that matter rather than remote county councils.

9.35 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I will not follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) in making a constituency speech; indeed, I intend to be almost totally non-controversial. If I start by saying I welcome the Bill, I hope that nobody would regard that as a highly controversial comment.
Hon. Members who take part in this debate obviously are subject to pressures from all directions from well-organised and quite proper pressure groups. The views most hon. Members will express are a result of all these pressures, plus any prejudices with which they may set out. I can reasonably claim to have no particular prejudices on these matters, but I freely admit that I am very much under the influence of the views put forward by my county council largely because the county, part of which I have the honour to represent, has a good record for being forward-looking, imaginative and efficient.
Therefore, when the county council represents to me very strongly—as it does—that the Bill goes too far in taking away from the counties various functions in order to give the district councils some red meat to get their teeth into, my first reaction is to agree. But I need constantly to remind myself, as do other hon. Members, that the pressures which are being exerted on us are in a sense lopsided.
Most hon. Members are subject to pressure from only one first-tier authority

which is well placed to express a clear-cut point of view, but at the other pole there are a number of district councils, in many cases not yet in existence, which will have points of view to put forward which may cancel each other out. But their arguments are unlikely to be as well articulated or as powerful as the views put forward by the first-tier authorities which are already in existence or whose shape is already manifest.
When I consider the present situation, subject as I am to these effective pressures from the county council, my tendency is to say that such-and-such a function should go to the first-tier authority because that is the one which is best equipped to carry out the functions efficiently. This may well be the case today. I am not at all sure that it will be the case in 10 years' time. After all, we are legislating for a generation. It may be that, in 10 years, second-tier authorities will have evolved into efficient organisations which are very much closer to, more sensitive to and more in sympathy with their electors. It is impossible to predict exactly how the balance will work.
Therefore I welcome very much the discretion which the Bill gives to the Minister in certain respects to transfer functions downwards from first-tier to second-tier authorities, and I should have been glad to see this discretion more widely available to my right hon. Friend. However, even after making allowance for the disparity of pressures to which I have referred, I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend has come to a wrong decision about planning. I do not intend to spend any time on this matter because it was covered amply by both my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) yesterday and by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) today. I add my voice to theirs in asking my right hon. Friend to look again at it.
If one consideration is decisive in this connection it must be the shortage of trained planning staff to carry out these complex functions. I believe that the solution which my right hon. Friend has chosen, for reasons that I understand, can only lead to the biggest muddle of all time.
For good or bad reasons, the Labour Party found itself unable to bring forward


any Bill for the reorganisation of local Government. For that reason, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not well placed to criticise my right hon. Friend for not inflicting on this House a second Bill of 350 pages at a time when the Government are attempting to tackle so many basic problems of the economy and of the administration of the country.
I am one of the few satisfied clients of the Bill. I give my warm support to its Second Reading.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: As the second Lancashire Member on this side of the House to be called, I am conscious of the privilege, and I intend to make the second shortest speech that I have ever made in this House.
I want to draw attention to the problems of the Skelmersdale and Holland Urban District Council outlined in the White Paper. It is to be included in District (c) of the metropolitan area of Merseyside.
A letter was sent from the Department of the Environment to all Lancashire Members saving, in effect, that although the boundaries and the districts were set out in the White Paper, that was not the end of the matter, and that the Secretary of State wanted to have discussions with the authorities concerned in order to obtain their views. If that meant anything, it meant that if councils came forward with objections and points of view, at the end of the day some weight should have been given to what was a unanimous opinion from all the councils included in District (c) of the Merseyside metropolitan area that the only place in which it was sensible to put the Skelmersdale and Holland urban district was in the Lancashire County Council area.
Yesterday, when explaining why a transfer should be made, the Minister said:
I must explain why this transfer was made. The reason was that, of all the suggestions made to us, this one alone was supported by six out of the nine local authorities concerned, which said that they wanted to be transferred from Essex to Suffolk. These six authorities represent the vast majority of the population of that area.
This suggestion was made not by my Department but by the local authorities concerned. I hope the House will agree that if the

Government enter into consultations with local authorities and they find that uniquely—in no other part of the country did such a large group of local authorities ask to be transferred to another county—there is such a request, it is right for my Department to take note of such a suggestion.
A little later he said:
… and the passing to Northumberland of a new town and an area which it was responsible for developing. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the decision about Northumberland, because it will make Northumberland a more viable county and give It the new town which it has itself largely developed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 236–7.]
The Lancashire County Council is inextricably intertwined and has become deeply involved in the development of Skelmersdale New Town. It was in at the birth and it has a tremendous financial commitment in its development. It will be the only new town in both Lancashire and Cheshire which will go out of the county orbit.
I come back to what the Minister said. If, uniquely, he got six out of nine counties to agree on one suggestion, how much more important is it if all 10 or 11 authorities concerned in District (c) say that the right place for Skelmersdale New Town is to remain in the county? I hope that he will give the Skelmersdale and Holland District that same privilege. I hope that he will take note of what I have said and that the result will be that Skelmersdale New Town and the urban district of Skelmersdale and Holland will go back into the orbit of the Lancashire County Council.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: Since Radcliffe-Maud started to lead local authorities into his garden, the Cities of Southampton and Portsmouth—two major seaports, if I need to remind anyone—have been trying to save their civic departments from the squirearchy of the county control. Plans and suggestions have been flashing backwards and forwards to the Minister: plans for splitting Hampshire from north to south; plans for splitting Hampshire from east to west.
Hon. Members may feel that representations which have already been made to my right hon. Friend and decided against should not be brought up at this late hour; but I believe that the education


proposals in the Bill are thoroughly unsatisfactory for Hampshire and, in particular, for Southampton, and I should be failing in my service to the people I represent if I did not make this point extremely clear to my right hon. Friend.
Hampshire will be the largest non-metropolitan county. In population— 1,466,000—it will be larger than two of the proposed metropolitan areas, South Yorkshire and Tyneside. Population in Hampshire is growing and will continue to do so. With the implementation of the South Hampshire plan the population will be in the region of 2 million by the year 2000. I was heartened yesterday to read my right hon. Friend's remarks when he said:
Therefore, I have decided that although in the metropolitan districts, with much larger populations, responsibility for education can be at district level …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 245.]
My case is that the population in Hampshire will surely make it one of those areas which can have education at district level. It will be twice the size of the maximum population considered to be appropriate for an education authority by the Royal Commission. Hampshire has a special case because it is the only county to include an offshore island. I have been informed that the Isle of Wight has been given special responsibilities. Do these include education? Consider the kind of education authority that Hampshire will have if it remains a non-metropolitan area. The committee will comprise members from as far apart as Lyndhurst in the South-West to Farnborough in the North-East.
The word "local" will obviously disappear. No longer will the chief education officer and his principal assistants be able to know or talk personally to all head teachers in the area. Members of the committee will no longer be able to place in their mind's eye the environmental and educational facilities. Is it possible to control 800 schools from a non-metropolitan area? If ever there was a personal service surely it is education. It is a personal service between the parent, the child, the teacher, the education officer and his staff and, most important, the education committee. The educational opportunities for the child will suffer. There are no powers for districts to demand delegation of education, social services or library services from the county,

and there is no provision for arbitration if a case can be proved by the large urban conurbations, even if it is obvious after a period that these personal services are suffering due to the working of this Measure.
Would my right hon. Friend, in Committee, look at the special case of Hampshire, the largest county, larger than two of the metropolitan areas, with all the in-built difficulties of being included with an offshore island; there are two enormous seaports and there will be a vast increase in population up to the year 2000? If some of these details can be borne in mind in Committee I would be only too willing to vote for the Government on the Bill because it is good in parts and is something for which we have waited for a long time.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. John McCann: After serving 25 years in local government I recognise the need for changing it. At this stage in our proceedings I unashamedly make a point which could better be made in Committee but as we are not to have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House I have to make it now. Having accepted the two-tier system, I recognise the fact that Manchester, as a metropolitan area, is the natural centre for the regional services in the area.
There I part company with the Government, because I want to discuss metropolitan districts in the Greater Manchester area. The Government White Paper said at paragraph 7:
boundaries should be drawn so that areas take account of patterns of development and travel.
Paragraph 59 was even more explicit when it said:
The boundaries must be accepted as sensible by the people on the spot.
This has not happened with District (c). Some civil servant has drawn a nice little circle and said "That will make a fine community interest." This will not happen because the Bill places Rochdale and Bury together in a metropolitan district. This is the only instance in the Greater Manchester area where two county boroughs are linked. Each of the county boroughs has a separate sub-region, and there is very little community of interest between them. If they were amalgamated, it would result in a district without a


natural centre, and the White Paper regards that as unacceptable.
The Government promised consultation, and in the course of that consultation, which was mainly by correspondence, my council laid down:
The council consider that community of interest and accessibility of elected representatives and officers to the people they serve should be the paramount consideration in creating a unit of local government unless there are the most compelling reasons justifying a particular policy requirement.
The case was put on community of interest. We also argued that, while there was a considerable affinity between Rochdale and its neighbouring districts and between Bury and its neighbouring districts, there was insufficient between the two to justify linking them as one local government unit.
Each area is self-sufficient for the services it provides at regional level. Neither depends on the other for any services. They look to Manchester for the local arms of the national services—Post Office, telephones, Inland Revenue, hospitals and so on. Even the travel patterns in the S.E.L.N.E.C. survey, which has just been published, show that all the journeys are north and south and not east and west, from Manchester to Bury and from Manchester to Rochdale.
Only the other night, the S.E.L.N.E.C. people told me that although the railway between Bury and Rochdale was closed, with no hope of being reopened, the lines between Bury and Manchester and between Rochdale and Manchester were to be upgraded. The travel-to-work patterns are different, and the interests and local associations are different—charitable, sporting and church. If the two were united, we should have two complete groups instead of one live local community.
This brings me to the population issue. I have never believed that bigger was better. If the areas were divided into two in the natural sense that the local authorities envisage, both would be just short of the required total laid down in the Bill, although in the Bill itself some areas are as low as 177,000. There is a natural solution to this. If Middleton were moved from Oldham—and I hope that the Minister will take note of this, for I understand that it would like to be—

there would be a closer affinity and a contiguous boundary with Rochdale. The problem would be completely solved and Oldham would still be left with 222,000 people. The Rochdale metropolitan borough would have 206,000 people, and the population projection for 1981 would take it to 229,000 people and by 1991 to 247,000 people, and one has to recognise that we are legislating for until the end of the century. This would be quite big enough to provide the services required. Geographically, it would give a natural centre with a community of interest, and more important still, the existing staff to administer the personal social services.
Rochdale has a proud history of progress in local government and a very famous name. People come from all over the world to see the birthplace of the Co-operative Movement. If the name of Rochdale disappears, a part of our history will go. With a population of 93,000 and one of the lowest penny rate products in the country, Rochdale appears in the first division of the capitation league, and it has a wide range of advisers and outstanding works to its credit in every respect. I honestly believe that all this could be lost if we became a divided borough.
The solution that I suggest would be regarded as sensible by the people on the spot. I know that the Minister is very sympathetic and I ask him to think again for the sake of local government in the area. By all means let us have changes, but when we change, let us take the people with us.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: This has been a remarkable debate. At the end of two days, one finds that there has been only one speech giving unqualified support to the Government's proposals. Time and again, from both sides of the House—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Howell: Had other hon. Members, on both sides, who wanted to make a genuine contribution to the debate been able to do so, they would have swelled the gathering chorus of criticism of the Government and this Measure.
Local government is about people, about their needs, about giving them a say in what happens in their area, and about attending to their grievances. At the end of the day, the only question that matters is, will this Measure work? We have had ample evidence that it will not. The Bill is a complete sell-out of almost every large city and town. On almost every point of importance the Government have given way to the counties, instead of taking the views of the towns and cities. Indeed, the Secretary of State in his speech yesterday, particularly as reported in columns 234–235 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, went out of his way to talk about the historic position of county boundaries but said nothing about our great towns.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Come, come. I pointed out that the previous Government's proposals would have abolished almost every town and most of the county boroughs.

Mr. Howell: That is the only time that I shall give way during my speech for the right hon. Gentleman to say "Come, come", because he spoke for 50 minutes yesterday and during the last 40 minutes refused to give way to any of my hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have been through HANSARD very carefully, and I shall return to this in a moment, because it is of some importance.
The purpose of the Bill is to re-establish the boundaries of our towns and cities. This is being done by political imposition, and not as a result of a Royal Commission authorising the Government to act, or as a result of a public inquiry at which people put forward objections to an independent inspector who listened to the evidence and then adjudicated upon it.
This is a Bill to impose a political solution on our towns and cities. Did anyone ever believe that we should see the day when our large cities would be castrated, designated as district councils, left with all the great problems of our urban communities, and denied the means

and the land with which to solve their problems? That is what the Bill is all about. What a fate to mete out to such historic places as Cardiff, Norwich, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, and many others that one could enumerate. All these towns, which are the real providers of wealth in our community, are to be sacrificed at the political whim of the Government. This is an absolutely scandalous state of affairs. It is no wonder that hon. Members on both sides of the House have condemned the Bill out of hand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) told us that
Stoke-on-Trent, a county borough of 270,000 people
is to be reduced
to the status of a district council … because of some political gerrymandering by the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 263.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said:
we shall fight for a Tamarside authority, and we shall pin the responsibility for this appalling legislation where it lies—with the Tory Party and the Tory Government"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 288.]
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) invoked the spirit of Sir Francis Drake and told us that the drum would rumble again. She said:
I think that we shall be hearing it again in the near future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 312.]
The hon. Lady went on to say that she would vote against the Government tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) talked about an outrage which is being perpetrated on us. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) spoke of the great traditions of our ancient boroughs and said that it is adding insult to injury that they should be forced to go cap in hand to get their charters recognised again. From all parts of the House we know that this is the story.
It is not just the towns and the cities. One would expect this Government to have some joy from the counties, but they have had little joy from the counties during the last two days. The question of Malvernshire has been raised. The hon.


Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) complained about the massacre of Worcestershire and of Herefordshire. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he had supported the new name of "Malvernshire" but that public opinion had forced him to change his mind.
We are told that Somerset is up in arms. The hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made an excellent speech in which he told us that the local authorities had made a submission. The hon. Gentleman then said this:
In due course, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development was dispatched to Somerset to take soundings and to go through the motions of consultations. Although I requested to see him in his official capacity, my application to do so was rejected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 268.]

Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the record of the intervention which I made in my hon. Friend's speech in which I explained the position? I did not refuse to see him.

Mr. Howell: If the Minister says that he did not refuse to see his hon. Friend, of course I accept that; but his hon. Friend did not accept it yesterday when the Minister made that point from the Dispatch Box. Therefore, I am entitled to make it again. At any rate, it proves the point that I was trying to make that there is not much sympathy for these proposals even in Weston-super-Mare and in the county of Somerset.
Durham, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) said in an outstanding speech this afternoon, has every right to be aggrieved. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) said the same sort of thing.
It is proposed to put a large chunk of Essex into Suffolk. The Secretary of State said that he was reinforced in this view because five local authorities had suggested to him that he should do it. He produced that piece of information like a conjurer producing a rabbit from a hat. No sooner had the right hon. and learned Gentleman done that than three of his hon. Friends rose and told us that the rabbit had got myxomatosis.

Mr. Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman was one of those who did that.

Mr. Braine: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. Will he not allow that, after hearing the argument from Essex Members, the Minister said that he would look at the matter again? Is not that the whole purpose of debate?

Mr. Howell: I am glad to hear that the Minister has said that he will look at it again. However, that has become the standard defence. Over the whole of these two days, every time the Minister has been attacked he has said that the Government will look at the matter again. If the Minister looks again at everything that he has promised to look at again we shall be here until next Christmas. We know that we shall be here till next Christmas anyway, and not much difference will be made.
As regards the metropolitan areas and the large authorities, it is here most of all that the stench of party political gerrymandering is to be found at its greatest. Look at what has happened to our large cities and conurbations, particularly since the White Paper. Merseyside—Ellesmere Port removed. Wales—Cardiff massacred, Glamorgan butchered, and Swansea gerrymandered. That in a nutshell is the picture in Wales. As regards the East Midlands, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) told us how the Derbyshire County Council, with its long and proud record of positive achievement, is feeling the pinch. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill), who spoke a few minutes ago, told us about Southampton and Portsmouth. If ever there were an area which ought to have been designated as a metropolitan area, it is that rapidly growing centre in South Hampshire. But we know why that step has not been taken, for party-political advantage.
In the West Midlands, there is a remarkable story to tell. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) in his place. When the White Paper came out, half the hon. Gentleman's constituency was to disappear into Solihull. We can all imagine the scene as he trotted round to see his right hon. Friend to ask, "What the devil are you doing to my constituency? I am a Whip. You will decapitate my constituency, but I canont say a word


in its defence." So, when the proposals came out, we were not surprised to see Hall Green restored, although large areas of importance for Birmingham overspill, in Chelmsley Wood and Kingshurst, have been taken out of Birmingham and put into Solihull—a clear case of political gerrymandering if ever there were one. I shall come back to that in a minute.
As for the question of boundaries, we have heard a lot from Ministers about consultations during the past two days, but they have not told us of the most important consultations of all, the consultations they had, week in and week out, month in and month out, with Conservative Central Office. The chairman of the party was there, on the inside. I should like to put my assessment of Conservative Party strategy on the record. The last Conservative Government set out to destroy the L.C.C. because they thought that it was the power base of the Labour movement in the country's capital city, and they thought that they had got away with it. This Conservative Government, wherever they find Labour strongholds in our towns and cities or counties, are setting out to destroy those as well.
I see no reason why the Labour Party should be prepared to accept a situation in which Conservative Governments can gerrymander boundaries and Labour Governments, when we have them, should be expected to acquiesce. Undoubtedly, we shall have to return to this matter again.
I come back for a moment to the West Midlands metropolitan area. I have listened to a good many constituency points, so perhaps I might make one myself. Did anyone ever think that we should see a situation in one metropolitan area joining Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and everything in between in one local authority? It is ludicrous. There is no identity of interest between the people of Coventry and the people of Wolverhampton, or between Binningham-Coventry, Birmingham-Wolverhampton, and so on. It is outrageous.
As regards the transfer of land—I have already mentioned Chelmsley Wood—one of the things we must know on the housing side is whether, when Binning-ham hands over those tens of thousands of council houses, the ownership of the houses will be retained by Birmingham

or will go to Solihull. It is a vital consideration here that Birmingham, not having been given the land on which to build, will be in a most serious position if it is denied the re-letting of those houses as well. I am not surprised to see that the Conservative leaders in Birmingham, who show a little more statesmanship in this matter than the Minister does—[Interruption.]—it is a change, yes, but let us give credit where it is due, even at this late hour—are drawing attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has given them the authority to go ahead with building the national exhibition centre for the whole country and, immediately thereafter, proposes that, after Birmingham has financed it, the rateable value should be handed over to Solihull. What a proposition to put before the electorate!
Again on the question of land, I come back to the hon. Member for Hall Green, who has been hauled up, together with his colleagues, before the leaders of the Birmingham Conservative Party and asked to explain—I quote here the alderman who leads the Tories in Birmingham—what has happened between the publication of the White Paper and publication of the Bill. We are now answering that question for him.
The hon. Gentleman was obviously in some difficulties. The Birmingham Evening Mail reported him as saying:
We were able to give a firm reassurance that the problem of Birmingham's slum clearance has been borne well in mind and land would be made available within easy travelling distance of the city …'
The report continued: "Mr. Eyre said that the report recently drawn up by the West Midlands Planning Conference, which suggested land to the north of Minworth and at Earlswood for Birmingham's housing requirements, was now being studied by the Department of the Environment.
'We were able to state, in answer to the city leaders' point about the availability of land, that under that survey land would be made available. We would see that that arrangement was kept'.
That is a denial of every principle of planning and the integrity of every public inquiry that has ever been held. On whose authority was the hon. Gentleman able to make that claim? He is a member of the Government; he is speaking for the Government when he says that. Is he speaking for the Secretary of State? What about the impartial inquiries where


there are compulsory purchase orders? When I was Minister of State I was always told that they were so sacrosanct that one dared not even breathe about them before the decision had been announced. There is no one holding land in Minworth, Tamworth and Earlswood, or other places surrounding Birmingham, who will ever believe after that statement that if a C.P.O. is confirmed by the Minister for Birmingham it was anything but a put-up job.
It is a most serious situation, and we are entitled to an answer tonight. I am prepared to give way if the Secretary of State wishes to tell us that the hon. Gentleman had no authority for the speech he made. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intervene, we can only assume that the hon. Gentleman had every authority to say it. We shall draw the conclusions that we should from his failure to intervene.
I turn to other serious matters which should be dealt with in this debate. Incidentally, it would have been better if we had had at least one English Minister speaking at some time on the second day of the debate. I come to the question of provinces and regions, which has not been much mentioned. At the same time as the Government are embarking upon a new local government situation in which the metropolitan areas cannot solve their problems and in which there is great and growing disillusionment as to what can happen in our counties and districts, the Minister tells us in his Circular 85 that there is to be a considerable build-up of the regional offices of Ministries. That is of great significance. I believe that we shall need to improve the regional offices of Ministries if the metropolitan areas cannot solve their problems.
The Government are relying upon co-operation from the counties to solve the housing and land question. But for 20 years the counties surrounding our great conurbations—London, Birmingham, Merseyside and Manchester—have failed to help solve the problems of land shortage for the people living in those conurbations. There can be no confidence that under the proposed arrangements anything will change. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are going out of their way to build up the regional offices of Ministries. The whole of the

Secretary of State's remarks on the matter, reported in column 237 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, were an argument in favour of regional government, or provincial government if one prefers the Redcliffe-Maud proposals.
The Minister has to intervene more and more on the financing of local government, which has hardly been mentioned. It is almost inconceivable that we should have proposals to reform local government without first knowing what proposals to reform finance are to be put before us.
I believe that we shall see regional government without any democracy. Regional decisions will be taken by Ministers, but there will be no locally elected authorities to carry out regional strategy. If that is to be the case, then the argument for Select Committees of this House to look into regionalism is more than made out. I trust that this aspect will be borne in mind.
On the question of elected councillors, I wish to make it clear on behalf of the Labour Party that we think that the proposals for allowances are not good enough in any respect and that it will be extremely difficult to get people to serve on these authorities.
I have with me a letter from the town clerk of Plymouth about this, but I will not weary the House by reading it. I agree that it is almost an outrage to have Plymouth governed from a centre 43 miles distant. How are we to find people who can afford the time to go to an area like that? People serve on local authorities not for the power it gives them but because of the sense of satisfaction and involvement they gain. They want to serve, and nothing is more likely to undermine that desire than the actions of the Government.
It is no good putting local authority councillors and especially district councillors in the position of not being able to make satisfactory replies when they are approached by their local citizens. The citizen expects his councillor to do something on his behalf. Nothing can bring the councillor more into contempt than the sort of answers he will be obliged to give to a number of vital questions.
He will have to say, for example "I agree that you should have a house, but


the metropolitan council does not have any land and I cannot do anything to help you." On another question he may be obliged to reply, "I agree that you need a better bus service, but that is not my responsibility. That responsibility belongs to another council." Even worse, he might have to say, "The council is putting your rent up, but there is nothing I can do about it. We are merely the precepting agency." Or he may say, "I appreciate that you have had your rate demand. We must levy rates which the county council demands."
During this debate quotations have been made from certain now famous words from the Government White Paper in which they demand more freedom and urge that more decisions should be taken where they matter, at the local level. What a lot of hollow nonsense that now is. For example, on probably the most important local function, housing, every major decision, including rents and rates, is being taken out of the hands of the local people.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say yesterday on the subject of councillors' allowances—I agreed with what he was saying about the need for allowances and how they would not compensate for the loss of wages:
it has involved a certain humiliating form-filling procedure which has been unfortunate.
We now know how to describe the new means test for millions of council tenants. We can describe it as a
humiliating form-filling procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 231.]
On the one hand the Government inflict a means test of this kind on council tenants, and on the other they use purple language of this kind. We shall not forget it for a long time.
There are many other subjects of tremendous importance which we have not had time to discuss. One is the time-scale. I am not surprised that the N.A.L.G.O. legal adviser has told us that the Bill is a "hastey botched-up job", complaining on the basis of the union's experience when London government was reorganised. I agree that it is ludicrous to have elections in November 1973 for authorities which will take over in the spring of the next year. He described the time-scale as "totally inadequate".
Complaints have been made about the situation affecting the police. The police have been reorganised on a number of occasions, and I wish to inform hon. Gentlemen opposite on behalf of my hon. Friends that we believe that the Police Federation has a very fine point indeed when it asks for police consultation.
Then there are complaints about the library system. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) pointed out that libraries and theatres do go together because in his authority they happen to have been built together. As he asked, who will control one and who will control the other? How is this problem to be resolved? The metropolitan district councils in the counties will not be given the opportunity to play a proper rôle in education—perhaps the most important of all our services.
There is the question of water resources. It is hardly comprehensible to reform local government until we are told what the Government intend to do about water resources, which are needed for every one of our services. On 25th March this year the Secretary of State said that he would produce his proposals as soon as possible. On 28th April he said that the conclusions of the Central Advisory Water Committee and the Government's consideration would be announced shortly. On 23rd June Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in another place, said that he expected a statement to be made before the Summer Recess. On 3rd August Lord Sandford, in another place, said that we could not have a statement before the recess. Therefore, I was not surprised to see in a Sunday newspaper this weekend that we cannot have any statement for the moment because the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions have been defeated in Cabinet. Therefore, nobody knows what the future of the great water resources industry will be.
There is the question of what has become known as the free penny. This is the provision by which local authorities can spend up to a penny rate with a comparative degree of freedom and without the shackles of Whitehall upon them. In the debate on the White Paper, the Government undertook to look at this mean measure. If we translate the free penny into terms of new pence, we find that the Government propose in the Bill


to increase the freedom of local authorities from 0·4p–0·5p. If we want to measure the freedom which the Government are giving local authorities, we must measure it in these terms—one-tenth of a new penny. Speaking for the Labour Party, I make it clear that local authorities' freedom to spend should extend to at least a 2½p rate, which would be of great help.
The planning confusion which will result from the Bill has been referred to time and again. Wherever one looks—whether it be at boundaries, functions or performance—the Bill is a shambles. Our worst fears will, I think, be realised. We have heard a lot today about the Secretary of State for Wales. It will be an absolute scandal if neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor the Secretary of State for the Environment serve on the Committee considering the Bill. It is a scandal that the Government have decided not to take the Bill's Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
The Bill is a complete abortion. If our worst fears are realised, if we believe that the new system is not working in many places, if there is public disillusionment about it, as I believe there will be, and if people do not come forward to stand for office because it is not worthwhile or because the distances involved are too great to be accepted on a voluntary basis by men and women with livelihoods to earn and homes to run, then any Government will have to return to the matter. A Labour Government would certainly have to do so. It will not be good enough to say, "Our system of local government has been reorganised; leave the matter there." The time has come to put an end to that sort of philosophy and thinking.
This Bill will create more problems than it will solve. It is a thoroughly bad Bill, and we shall vote against it.

10.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I have listened to most of the speeches in this two-day debate. I can share with all hon. Gentlement the wish that there had been the possibility of having two full days' debate as had been the original intention. I much regret that I was not present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for

Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies). Otherwise I think I can say that I have heard every speech made.
Having served on a Welsh local authority for about 20 years, I can honestly say that I very much understand why Members in all parts of the House have spoken about their own local authorities with such feeling and knowledge. In the same way, I understand why it has been so difficult to reach solutions which are acceptable to everyone. A point on which we can all agree, having listened to the two days' debate, is that the principle and idea of unitary authorities has not been canvassed by anybody.
Let me start my speech by dealing with some of the points raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen during the debate. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) made a specific and important request to my right hon. Friend which I promised him I would answer in the wind up. He asked about the city status of the great City of Swansea. The Bill permits all the new district councils to petition Her Majesty the Queen for a charter granting borough status. The new authorities will also be able to petition Her Majesty, but this does not appear specifically in the Bill because these matters are dealt with solely by the Royal Prerogative—the renewal of special privileges, of city status, the titles of royal borough and lord mayor. Clearly, we cannot anticipate what conclusions Her Majesty may reach on these requests, but after the reorganisation of London government the Queen renewed for the new authorities the title City—for Westminster—and Royal Borough—for Kensington and Kingston.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards), whose feelings about local government in Pembrokeshire are indeed well known to me, made a number of points, including one about the Welsh Church Acts. As far as the Welsh Church Acts are concerned, the present funds held in trust by the present county councils will vest in the new county councils. Where they are held for the benefit of particular areas they will continue to be held for the benefit of those areas. These funds are held mainly for social and welfare purposes. The alternative of dividing them between two districts would make them small funds and less economic of management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), like other hon. Members, spoke about functions and planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) spoke about small villages near Yarmouth going to Norfolk. My right hon. Friend will look at this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) made some particular points. I wish to tell him that my right hon. Friend is proceeding with discussions about those problems. Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred to several particular problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are those Members?"]—I would say with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are more Members on our side at present than there are on theirs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton), whom I see in his place, made some serious comments about the position of Whitby, and the care of the old being a district council function. This is a matter which my right hon. Friend has noted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons), also in his place, spoke about airports. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to the England-Wales boundary. I can only say that the decision follows the substance of Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1933, which enables agreed changes to be made by Order.

Mr. Simeons: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With great respect to my hon. Friend, if I were to give him a long answer about airports, I should be unable to cover many of the other points which have been raised. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will be in touch with him about the important question of airports.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) spoke of planning functions and planning staffs. I think the House enjoyed his speech, and his remark that he was born within a hundred yards of the only Welsh Prime Minister we have ever had made some of us think that the mantle of that great man had touched his shoulders today. I hope I have not embarrassed the hon. Gentleman, but he mentioned this in his speech.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I would ask the Minister whether he feels like the person he has mentioned. Whereas I would speak in terms of home rule for North England and some would speak in terms of home rule for Wales, would he speak in terms of home rule for Hell?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is an old Welsh chestnut.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) made one statement which I should like to correct. When speaking of the rateable values of the new Welsh counties he said that the rateable values of Mid-Glamorgan would be very little above the rateable value of Powys. He is wrong on this. I have the figures with me, and Mid-Glamorgan will be fifth out of eight. The top one will be South Glamorgan, the bottom one will be Powys and the others will be in between. I hope it will be accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the majority of local authorities in Wales get the benefit of rate support grant and that population is a major element in the calculation of rate support grant. As I shall show later, the population of Mid-Glamorgan—

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that there will be no reduction in the rate support grant?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question on local government finance which I shall be happy to answer on another occasion. We are discussing local government reform. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, as I know he has strong feelings on this.
We have been debating local government reform for many years. Various governments have produced White Papers, reports, consultative documents; and now it lies with this Government to introduce the Bill.
We have been at it longer than England, and in some ways this is an advantage. We have debated it in the Welsh Grand Committee on three occasions. There has been plenty of opportunity to discuss it with the local authorities; Since the consultative document was published my right hon. and learned Friend and I have met many of these local


authorities. The ones I had the privilege to meet were Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Merthyr Tydfil and Breconshire.
The proposals for Wales differ to some extent—not a very large extent—from those for England. In Wales we have no metropolitan areas, nor has there been any demand for them. In Wales as a result of consultation we have been able to bring forward detailed proposals for the districts which we have not done for England. In Wales the districts are defined in the Bill and have rather more responsibilities than in England. But the differences are not fundamental.
This is a long Bill, 100 pages longer than the London Government Act, 1963. The existing body of local government law applying to England and Wales has to be rewritten or amended.
After the Bill has been passed in both Houses of Parliament and has the Royal Assent, there will still be an immense amount of consequential and transitional tidying up both by orders—this is covered by Clause 237—and by actual administrative steps in the localities.
Staff of existing authorities will have to be transferred to the new ones. Property of all kinds and funds will have to be transferred, too. Some joint boards and other joint authorities will have to be reconstituted. Fresh arrangements will have to be made for choosing local authority representatives on the large number of outside bodies.
A task to which the highest priorty must be given is arranging the first elections to the new local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already set in train the arrangements for these. Draft proposals will be sent to the existing local authorities for comment within the next few weeks.
One of the tasks of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales will be to review the electoral arrangements of counties and districts as soon as the special community review, already referred to, is completed. The criteria which must be applied in this review are laid down in the Bill in Schedule 11.
The basis is that as far as practicable within any one council each councillor

should represent the same number of electors. There will not be special weighting to towns or to rural areas.
As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, a large part of the work of setting up the new electoral areas for the new councils will fall on local authority officers. They will also be deeply involved with all the other necessary changes.
The Bill, by Clause 240, requires the Secretary of State to appoint a Staff Commission within one month of its being passed. My right hon. and learned Friend plans to set up a staff committee next spring, which will become the Staff Commission when the Bill is law, to start preparatory work a year before the new county and district councils are elected and are in a position to appoint their chief officers.
Although we shall have a separate Welsh Staff Commission, it will, of course, keep in close touch with the English Staff Commission over matters of common concern.
It has taken much thought and work to reach conclusions for presentation in a Bill to this House. No solution will satisfy everyone; Solomon could not produce one. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West knows the difficulties of this whole question. He rightly said that on local government he had succeeded in uniting the whole of Wales against him. But what we have striven to do is to produce solutions which will work and will take account of the strong feeling of community in Wales which the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) referred to yesterday.
In 1967, the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) then Secretary of State, said in his White Paper that local government reform in Wales was urgent. It is even more urgent today.
Good local government officers will not be attracted to a profession, where the prospects are not certain, and it is high time that Parliament laid the pattern of the future in local government for members and officers alike. Parliament owes it to these men and women, who put into action so many of the laws which we pass here, and who care for the people on the spot and in their homes.
Hon. Gentlemen have spoken of the way in which the Bill divides Glamorgan into three counties. Let us start with the existing pattern. It is the view of the Government that the county boroughs should not be perpetuated in East or West Glamorgan. This was the view of the last Government, too. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to this in the case of Wales in his 1970 White Paper.
Three of these county boroughs—Cardiff, Swansea and Merthyr—are in Glamorgan. The total present population of these three county boroughs is 511,000. The present county of Glamorgan as a population of 748,000. Added together the population is just over 11 million, almost half of the population of Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted to make two unitary authorities in Glamorgan, of 372,000 and 919,000. We want to make three counties, and they will have populations of 393,000, 371,000 and 533,000. These are surely sizeable county units and Mid-Glamorgan will be the largest county in Wales in terms of population.
In coming to a conclusion over three counties in Glamorgan, we have had to consider the views of Merthyr Tydfil and of Cardiff. When Merthyr's representatives came to see me, they argued that they wanted a valleys authority, that the community of interest in the valleys was something special and different from that of the coastal plain. This is an argument that hon. Gentlemen have often used when arguing for the industrial interests of their own constituencies. I know full well that this feeling in the valleys is a living thing. The representatives of Merthyr also said that they had a different outlook from that of Cardiff.
If the valleys have their problems, so Cardiff has major problems of development, too. In his 1970 White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman, although a Car-cliff Member himself, gave to Cardiff the status of a parish council.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Shame!

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister of State aware that this was before the General Election and that, as a result, the Tories had the lowest vote ever in my constituency?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I seem to remember that the right hon. Gentleman's majority

is not quite what it used to be. But I could never understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not do better for Cardiff. When we debated his proposals in the Welsh Grand Committee, except for his Under-Secretary not one of his hon. Friends supported his proposals. It is interesting to read what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said on that occasion.

Mr. Alec Jones: Talk about your Bill.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is quite intolerable. Without any disrespect to Welsh hon. Members on both sides of the House, there are more than 10 times as many English as Welsh hon. Members. Will the hon. Gentleman now say something about the English part of the Bill?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman cannot take it and he has never been able to take it. If he had listened to the first part of my speech, which I gave entirely to answering some of the questions which were put by English Members on both sides of the House, he would not have bothered to get off his backside.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman a few moments ago said that the previous Government allowed Cardiff only parish council status. The present Government, in the metropolitan areas of Britain, allow most urban districts and local authorities in those areas no independent status at all. That point was made earlier today. We are still waiting for an answer to that and to a number of other very important questions.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My right hon. Friend is more than capable of dealing with the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman. Having dealt with most of the English problems, I am speaking now on a specific Welsh problem—the particular problem of the capital city of Wales. If there is time, I should like to come to some quotations from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Michael Fidler: I hesitate to transgress on the time of my hon. Friend. Yesterday I raised the question of the Greater Manchester District (c) and tonight my colleague on the other side of the House,


the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), raised the same question. I should be grateful for a sympathetic reply.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept that entirely. I had it in my notes to favour the hon. Gentleman with a reply on the particular problems of Ramsbottom which he raised. My right hon. Friend shall certainly be looking at these problems.
What I wish to say to the House—

Mr. Fidler: rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I will certainly accede—[Interruption.]—I should be grateful if the House would listen to what I have to say in conclusion. I wanted to refer to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had to say on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not listen to him."]—It is all very well saying, "Do not listen to him", but it is clear that a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite do listen to him. Perhaps hon. Members will now listen to what I have to say about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
In the Welsh Grand Committee, on 13th May, 1970, he said that
sticking to the original proposals with some variations would be much the preferable course.
In col. 47, when asked what our policy was, I said:
we support the 1967 White Paper with certain exceptions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 13th May, 1970, c. 24–47.]
It is not often that the views of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and myself coincide.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident that our views are in agreement and that it might be wise to reach agreement upon them in the House as a whole, why are the Government not prepared to submit the proposals for Wales in a separate Bill to a Welsh Grand Committee, when he would be able to put his views and I would be able to put mine? Then we could see how Wales would determine this matter.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If everyone else felt like the hon. Gentleman there would be no problem. I would remind him that this point was raised in the Welsh Grand Committee on 13th July when he and his hon. Friends in effect presented a

challenge to the Government. They said "We insist that any Welsh Measure to reform local government be considered by a Committee founded on the Welsh Grand Committee"—that is the Welsh Members plus not more than five others. They went on to suggest, in the words of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), that it would be utterly wrong to overload the Committee with other Members who had no knowledge of the problems at issue.
The right hon. Member for Caernarvon, if I understood him correctly last night, was withdrawing from that position a little and suggesting a Committee with a substantial number of added Members. This suggestion has to be considered against the background of what has gone before. The hon. Member for Gower, who wound up on 13th July, called on his hon. Friends to express their opposition to our proposals by dividing the Committee, and this they did. The Government must accept challenges of this kind. If hon. Members opposite threaten to block urgently-needed legislation they must expect a government to do what is necessary and proper to see that business goes through. Hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies will be treated in exactly the same way as English Members.

Mr. Alec Jones: rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I must—

Mr. Alec Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am normally very generous but it is not possible for me to give way now because of the shortage of time.
What a difference there was between the speeches of the right hon. Member for Caernarvon and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West. The right hon. Member for Caernarvon made a thoughtful and philosophic speech and the House could with advantage hear more of him. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West has spoken often in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too often."] That, unfortunately, is not a matter for the House


but for the Leader of the Opposition. The tone of his speeches never changes and the one he gave us today is best forgotten.
This debate will not be forgotten. This is a difficult and complicated matter of local government reform which the Government have undertaken, and we believe that the proposals meet in the best possible way the needs of good local government

in Wales and England and, as my hon. and right hon. Friends explained, we believe that it is right to ask the House to support the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 231.

Division No. 10]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Alison, Micheal (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Farr, John
Loveridge, John


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Fidler, Micheal
Maclean, Sir Fitrzoy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacMillan Maurice (Farnham)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Micheal


Balniel, Lord
Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
Madden, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mather, Carol


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, w)


Boscawen, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Green, Alan
Moate, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernie


Braine, Bernard
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brewis, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Havers, Micheal
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill James (Southampton, Test)



Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Fredrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crichley, Jullian
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dean, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Micheal (Cardiff, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Broke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony




Russell, Sir Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tilney, John
Wilkinson, John


Soref, Harold
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Trew, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sproat, Iain
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodnutt, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Waddington, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Stokes, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom






NOES


Albu, Austen
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lomas, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Baxter, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackintosh, John P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gourley, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Booth, Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward


Concannon, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)



Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pardoe, John


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pentland, Norman


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Latham, Arthur
Rankin, John


Ellis, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Richard, Ivor


Ewing, Henry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)







Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Steel, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Roper, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Rose, Paul B.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Weitzman, David


Sandelson, Neville
Strang, Gavin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton, N. E.)
Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Sillars, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Willams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank



Small, William
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of

the whole House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 252.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Harry
Kerr, Russell


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Lambie, David


Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lamond, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Latham, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bradley, Tom
Golding, John
McBride, Neil


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McCann, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

McGuire, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maclennan, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
Marsden, F.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mayhew, Christopher


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Horam, John
Mendelson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Huckfield, Leslie
Millan, Bruce


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughen, Mark (Durham)
Milne, Edward


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Murray, Ronald King


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Driberg, Tom
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orme, Stanley


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pardoe, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Ellis, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)




Pavitt, Laurie
Sandelson, Neville
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tinn, James


Pendry, Tom
Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton, N. E.)
Tomney, Frank


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom


Perry, Ernest G.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Sillars, James
Urwin, T. W.


Prescott, John
Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Watkins, David


Probert, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Weitzman, David


Rankin, John
Spearing, Nigel
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Steel, David
Whitlock, William


Richard, Ivor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas



Roper, John
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. James A. Dunn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jessel, Toby


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Drayson, G. B.
Jopling, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Astor, John
Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Atkins, Humphrey
Eden, Sir John
Kershaw Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Balniel, Lord
Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter


Beamish, Cot. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Knox, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Benyon, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biffen, John
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman
Longden, Gilbert


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

McCrindle, R. A.


Boscawen, Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bowden, Andrew
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Brewis, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus


Bryan, Paul
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle


Chichester-Clark, R.
Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Cockeram, Eric
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, James (Southampton, Teat)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cordle, John
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Holt, Miss Mary
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cormack, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Costain, A. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Critchley, Julian
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Onslow, Cranley


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dean, Paul
James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)







Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sharples, Richard
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Parkinson, Cecil,
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trew, Peter


Percival, Ian
Simeons, Charles
Tugendhat, Christopher


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenze, W. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Soref, Harold
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Spence, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Sproat, Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hin. Sir Derek


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stainton, Keith
Wall Patrick


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Redmond, Robert
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Ward, Dame Irene


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stokes, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rost, Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Royle, Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tilney, John
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Scott, Nicholas

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in England and Wales, it is

expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by any Minister under that Act;
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment; and
(c) the expenses of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, together with any sums payable to persons appointed under that Act to assist and advise either of those Cornmissions.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Orders of the Day — BACON INDUSTRY

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: There can be few subjects which would arouse the House at this hour more certainly than that of the bacon stabilisation fund. A more delicate, difficult point for British farming than the future of the pig industry cannot readily be thought of. No sector within British farming is more sensitive to input costs and/or output prices than pigs. The ability of substitution as between the cutter, the bacon pig and the heavy hog defy imagination; and yet it is because of this that anything the Ministry do in this industry has a particularly immediate effect.
Over a number of years western countries have experienced what is now known as the pig cycle—a highly volatile movement in the price of pigs, quantities of pig meat produced and the prices received by the producers of such products. Governments here and abroad have tried a number of expedients to dampen both the amplitude in numbers in the cycle and the size of the price fluctuations involved.
Within this the bacon stabilisation fund has played a crucial role. It was introduced, I think, in 1967. Since then the concept has been twofold—that the share of the total market for home produced bacon should be increased from some 34 per cent. to at least better than the Danish proportion and, if possible, be increased to 50 per cent. or the magic number of 51 per cent. The policy of Conservative Members when in Opposition was to press upon the then Minister that to save on imports we should increase the share of the bacon market taken by home produce. There has never been any question of this being a partisan issue. It was always intended that British bacon should become a more common feature of the breakfast diet of our people.
The stabilisation fund was arranged to aid two categories of people, the bacon

producer and the bacon curer. The scheme has operated within various limits over the past four or five years. Any excess pigs produced beyond the international agreements, arranged from one April to another, had to be taken off, either into the cutter or heavy hog markets. This was clearly part of the whole concept of both the bacon stabilisation fund and the international bacon sharing agreements.
So we have a product that is highly volatile and sensitive and a scheme intended both to dampen the amplitude of cyclical behaviour and to increase the British producer's share of the bacon market. In the past 15 months, under the guidance of the present Minister, the British pig producers have been encouraged on successive occasions to increase their output. There has never been any suggestion, whether in the interim guaranteed levy changes in October, 12 months ago, or in the White Paper on the 1971–72Price Review that all was not well, although there was a hint in the Minister's statement of 21st April, when he said that with pigs one can never be sure. But within the middle band of uncertainty the Minister made no suggestion that throughput or output should be decreased.
Now, as between the June census figures and those of September, there is solid evidence that in-pig gilts have diminished in number by 26 per cent. The number of sows may have increased marginally; when we would expect 6,000, we have 7,000. The evidence is overwhelming that we are on the top end and tending to flatten out of the pig cycle. The Farmers Weekly said:
The downward side of this pig cycle looks like being steep.
Armed with that information, that already the downward turn of the pig cycle was imminent, the Minister chooses the precise moment to inculcate uncertainty into the whole of the British pig industry. His speech of 21st October cannot be read—whether in terms of the Press release in the Library of the House or in the Press statements to the national and farming specialist Press at that time—as other than being a suggestion that it was necessary to the pig industry to look very closely indeed at the quantity it was producing.
It was also saying a lot of other things. In particular, however, it was saying that


the quantity of bacon being produced was excessive and that the price was therefore too low relative to Danish prices, the assumption being quite clearly that because we were producing too much bacon, we were causing the price to fall.
Does the Minister think that this is an incorrect assumption to have made—that from his 21st October speech it was not quite clear that the gap between the price of British home cured bacon and Danish bacon required a reduction in the throughput of British A1 and other bacon by about 500 tons a week to "firm up the market", to borrow the right hon. Gentleman's phrase?
I agree that when he made that speech the gap was £50 a ton, but he did not say what he well knew—that the gap was highly temporary. It had not occurred in any week before, nor has it occurred in any week since. He allowed the national Press to believe, I believe intentionally, that it was a natural level of gap.
Since then the price of Danish bacon has increased by £25 a ton and the price of A1 British bacon has increased to an all-time record of £380, only £25 less than the Danish price. The right hon. Gentleman may think that this is because the throughput has diminished. I simply ask him to check the chronology of his sum because that belief is totally unsupportable.
The price has narrowed without a diminution in the throughput of wholesale British bacon coming on to the Market. The quantities of British bacon now commanding a price difference of only £25 are no less than the quantities of British bacon suffering a £50 margin four weeks ago. The quantity currently being cured has diminished, but not the quantity coming on to the market.
Against that background, what do the Government do? With the number of pigs tending to flatten out, if not decline, they pick this very moment to bring about a diminution in the bacon throughput. There is a simple problem in respect of those pigs which are already farrowed: they fall into either the cutter or the heavy hog market and by so doing they disturb the price level and weaken both the cutter and the heavy hog prices. The result can only be that every pound the Minister saves on the bacon stabilisation fund he loses on the guarantee.
An analysis of the last six years shows that there is a correlation between estimated guarantee prices and outfall stabilisation prices and guarantee prices together. When stabilisation prices are high, guarantee prices come down. If by the enterprise the Minister is now engaged in of persuading, under duress, the bacon curers of this country to be most strict in their contracts he increases the weight of meat coming on the non-bacon sector, he lowers the price there. It may be masked between now and Christmas by the natural seasonal upswing in pork and such markets at this time, but in the immediate post-Christmas period there is a very considerable risk that he will by his action undermine the other sector than bacon prices.
There is one further factor which needs to be taken into account. If any bacon producer is to compete with the Danes and is to use imported feedstuffs, these now bear a levy of £2.50 per ton for maize. I accept that the bulk of pigs produced in this country are fed on home-produced barley, but, unless the concept of levies is not what the Minister suggests, bacon producers are faced with higher costs. At a time when costs have been intentionally and artificially raised to the pig producer by the Ministry by its levy policies, when for autonomous, cyclical reasons the pig circle is on the downswing, the Minister chooses to insert an element of uncertainty in the minds of the pig farmers.
What I hope will come out of this debate is a statement that the pig farmers will be given early next spring—not now, because that is beyond the Minister's immediate control—some indication of the Minister's policy so that they may plan ahead. Over the last four weeks they have been put in a state of great uncertainty, and the Ministry owes them a clear and simple statement on its views. Is the pig industry to expand or contract? Are our pig farmers to get a reasonable return from the Government through the bacon stabilisation fund?

11.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) for initiating


this short debate on the bacon industry. It is a subject we do not often get the chance to discuss in this House. I am bound to say that I think that it is due, perhaps, to the delicate and sensitive way in which he has tackled what he described as a difficult subject that we have a slightly larger attendance for the Adjournment debate than that to which one is accustomed. It is, of course, a subject of considerable importance.
The British market for bacon is worth between £250 million and £300 million a year. Between us, we and the Danes account for nearly 90 per cent. of the market, and the rest is shared between six or eight smaller suppliers.
Round about one-third of our pigmeat goes into bacon, much of it produced to very exacting standards, and the other two-thirds is divided equally between the fresh pork market and manufactured meat products.
This can, as the hon. Member said, cause problems of balance, and do not every Government know it? If too many pigs are diverted to bacon, the other users can be in trouble. Against that there can be snags the other way. If there is a strong market for pork, the bacon curers can be in difficulties, especially if the price of bacon is depressed.
This can happen because all the main suppliers of bacon to our market support their pig and bacon industries by one means or another; and except for brief periods bacon has been sold for years on our market at below its economic cost of production. This was the situation which arose in 1966 and forced the previous Government to introduce the Bacon Stabilisation Scheme. Both sides of the House accepted its basic purpose, which was to provide some stability for the industry in the light of the fluctuations to which the market was subject.
The scheme was intended to be self-balancing, with the industry receiving Exchequer support when it was making losses, but paying levies back to the Exchequer when it was working at a profit. As things have turned out this has not worked.
It is worth looking at what has actually happened since the scheme began: in

1966–67, 207,000 tons of bacon home-produced, 34 per cent. of the market, selling at £4 a ton below Danish; subsidy for the three or four months involved, £1·5 million. Last year, 262,000 tons, 42 per cent. of the market; but the gap in price between it and Danish widened to £35, and the subsidy was up at £22 million. Recent production at a pro rata level of 290,000 tons, 44 per cent. of the market, Danish getting a premium of over £50 a ton; and a subsidy of about £20 million again.
The hon. Gentleman said that the £50 had never happened before and has not happened since. Of course, there was, as I think I have shown, a continuous trend towards the £50, and the fact that it has not happened since is because the action taken by my right hon. Friend has worked. Up to the end of the last financial year over £43 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on bacon stablisation payments, and, as I have said, there is likely to be nearly another £20 million this year. In return, over the whole period the Exchequer has received levies amounting only to £56,000.
As I said a moment ago, we recognise that the bacon sold here by our competitors is all too often priced at below its economic cost, and we shall continue to take a reasonable view of this, but we do not think that it is good for the industry to rely on taxpayers' support to the extent which I have described.
There were, quite frankly, fundamental weaknesses in the scheme which we have had to put right. As it was in its original form there was very little incentive to the industry to produce and sell bacon efficiently, and to keep an eye on the market, as the Government were going to bear 90 per cent. of any loss made. That is not the way to build up a strong bacon industry.
In its recent report the Public Accounts Committee commented on this situation. It said:
Your Committee cannot feel satisfied that the heavy expenditure has produced value for money either for the taxpayer or for the consumer.
I know it has been claimed—and the hon. Gentleman made this point—that these figures are unrealistic, and that, through savings on the pig guarantee, the true net cost to the taxpayer is little or nothing. I am afraid I cannot accept that.


I recognise that in many of these years actual expenditure on the pig guarantee has been less than in the post-Review estimates. However, this cannot be wholly, or even largely, attributed to bacon stabilisation payments. In the first place, as curers take only one-third of the pigs, they can hardly look upon Exchequer savings on all pigs as available to them. Secondly, expenditure on the pig guarantee is notoriously difficult to forecast precisely. We accept that a strong demand for bacon pigs helps to provide a buoyant market, and we take this into account, but we must recognise that the greater part of the expenditure on the bacon stabiliser is, in present circumstances, a net addition to public expenditure.
In their comments on the report the Government have said that they share the Committee's concern at the rate of net expenditure on the scheme. Indeed, before the report had been produced, my right hon. Friend announced to the House, on 20th April, in a speech from which the hon. Gentleman made one or two rather selective quotations, that changes had been made in the scheme so as to stimulate closer attention to market conditions and reduce the cost to public funds.
I admit that these changes took some months to work through. Expected United Kingdom production under the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding for the present year was set at 265,000 tons—and the Goverment have an obligation to use their "best endeavours" that this figure will be kept to.
Until about a month ago, however, production here was running at a rate of over 290,000 tons a year and, as a result, it was being sold very weakly, and at heavy cost to the Exchequer. Even so, the arrangements made in April, under which the industry accepted more of the financial responsibility for over-production, were making the industry realise that it would have to pay more regard to what the market needed.
The industry recently asked for increases in Exchequer payments to reflect the higher quality bacon being produced and the increases in the costs of curing since the arrangements were introduced. In the circumstances I have described, my right hon. Friend decided—and I am certain he was right to do so—that he

could not defend to this House an increase in the rate of public expenditure on this scheme. On the other hand, he did not think that precipitate action was required. So, as he told the House on 3rd November, the Government decided that the arrangements introduced in April should continue unchanged for a further three months.
The response of the industry shows that it appreciates that it must pay more attention to what the market wants. The Bacon Curers' Federation has recommended a reduction of 10 per cent. from the previous high levels of production. The National Farmers' Union has accepted the necessity for this, and I believe that such a change can be made without damaging the confidence either of pig farmers or of the bacon curing industry.
As a result of these changes, our production is now running at a level close to the figure to which we are committed. The first-hand price of bacon, which before this announcement was £340 a ton—£50 below the Danish price—has risen to £380, only £25 below the Danish price; and public expenditure, which was running at nearly £22 million a year, has been reduced to an annual rate of £12 million.
I believe that with these changes the industry is in a sounder position for the coming year. Its production is more closely related to market needs, and it is relying less upon support from the taxpayer. Both those results are thoroughly healthy symptoms. We still have to make sure that we keep the right balance of pigs for bacon and for other purposes.
The industry has already shown this year what it can do to improve the quality of its product. Last April saw the introduction of a new top grade of British bacon, with a specification second to none. We have now reached the position where 90 per cent. of our home produced Wiltshire bacon is of grade A, and this augurs well for the future.
In the coming months the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding will have to be reviewed, to see whether it should be extended to provide stability in the United Kingdom bacon market and prices which are reasonable to both producers and consumers. We shall also have to look at the stabilisation arrangements which will apply from next April.
In accordance with the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation, which the Government have accepted, we shall pay particular attention to the general policy of bacon production and the comparison with subsidies in overseas countries. In all this we must keep an eye on our likely entry into the E.E.C. in 1973. When we reach the full Common Market stage our bacon industry will be freely competing on fair terms with all the other bacon industries within the enlarged Community. I believe that, as long as our industry pays

due regard to what the market needs, it can establish itself in a strong competitive position for the future.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Before the Parliamentary Secretary resumes his seat—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.